Introduction
With
the development of the idea that cooperation in the world politics can be
upgraded through the construction and support of multilateral relations and
multilateral institutions in the 20th century, importance of the
liberal doctrines increased. When
nations worry too much about a newly raising power or power diffusion,
overreaction or adopting dangerous strategies can seem as plausible options for
the leaders. As Thucydides stated in his book ‘History of Peloponnesian War’; rise of Athens in power and the fear
in Sparta as a result of this, caused the war which resulted with the collapse of
the Greek city system.[1]
Likewise, it is stated that World War I, caused by the rise of Germany in power
and the fear in Britain due to such development, as a result of this war the
centrality of European state system collapsed.[2]
Hence it is possible to say that, merely power diffusion and race for power
were the main concern of states in the world politics till the late 20th
century. But in today`s world, it is not an adequate way to consider the world
with realist views and with the aim of relative gains. States of 21th century should
consider all dimensions of power and how it changes with the adoption of
absolute gains which will make them all win.
After the increasing density of the sovereign states all around
the world, different conflicts and races of power also increased, states began
to race with the other sovereign states in their region with the aim of being
the rising power and the main actor in their region. Taking into account the
lack of the cooperation and the absence of a supreme entity above the states,
such conflicts in different dimensions emerged among the states.
This essay is tackling the neoliberal theory in international
relations theory in general and tries to apply this particular type of
theoretical approach to the regional conflicts in world politics. The essay is
rejecting the idea of considering the factor of power only in one dimension in
today’s world and advocating the cooperation among states and affords for solution
of the regional conflicts on the basis of neoliberal principles and absolute
gains.
Theoretical Approach – Neoliberalism
The theory of Neoliberalism in international relations is mostly
focusing on the international cooperation and international institutions, this
type of particular view shows that neoliberalist view goes beyond the realist
idea of interstate relations. In case of explaining the international
relations, the representatives of the neoliberalism possess different ideas in
case of international actors and their influences. Those neoliberalists whose
ideas are quite solid on the basis of neoliberalism believe that international institutions
play a significant role in international relations and they are underlying the
transnational nature of international relations. And those neoliberalists,
whose ideas are not that solid on the neoliberalist principles, agree that
states are the major actors of the international relations. Similar
disagreements can be seen regarding to the cooperation and multilateralism.
Solid neoliberalists see cooperation as rational for states, it may be helpful
in order to bring a resolution for issues and states may get benefit from it.
Non solid neoliberalists think that cooperation may give negative consequences
and cause the emergence of new issues, states may get apt to not implementing
their commitments.[3]
But in this regard, it is possible to say that, international institutions can
promote the international cooperation and assure the development of
cooperation. They also may put pressure on states to comply with the international
agreements. However all neoliberalists accept and acknowledge the importance of
the international cooperation which is one of the main principles of this
theory. And the theory indicates that institutions enhance the cooperation and
reduce the risk of war and conflict. Neoliberalism specifically looks at this
solution: it argues that international cooperation limit the effects of
anarchy.[4]
Besides, neoliberalists focus on domestic relations too, tackling
the domestic policy issues and the influence of the political regimes and
political systems to the state’s foreign policy in particular and to international
relations in general.[5]
Although some theories ignore the role of domestic policies in international
relations, neoliberalism indicates that the political systems, domestic
policies should not be neglected, democratic and non-democratic states would
act and interact differently. Democratic peace theory advocates the premise
that democracies solve the conflicts without using the military sources. Neoliberals
tackle the policy tools and diverse resources available for states, they are
underlying the importance of the economic sources and propound that power
cannot be absorbed only in military and political terms, but also as ‘soft power’. Joseph Nye firstly introduced the title of
‘economic security’ and ‘soft security’ and eventually the ‘soft power’ which
shows that states can pursue their national interest and create political
impact in other countries without using military sources.[6]
There are two most influential contemporary approaches in
international relations theory; neorealism and neoliberalism. And these two
views have dominated the international relations in last decade.[7]
Realism is a tradition associated with the ideas of Thomas Hobbes and
Machiavelli; according to this, international relations absorbed as interstate
relations with the principled of power politics and anarchy. And this tradition
illustrated by realism and neorealism. While rationalists refer to Grotius and
paying attention to the shared interests which may seem appealing to states as
an opportunity to consider the joint common rules and institutions. Liberalism
and neoliberalism are associated with this particular tradition.[8]
In order to understand the concept of neoliberalism and its
strong sides, it is necessary to tackle the third great debate in international
relations theory. The third great debate, or the ‘Neo – Neo debate’, which was
a debate between neorealism and neoliberalism. The double ‘neo’ is one of the
signs that show this is an update, a discussion about the latest version of
state in international relations.[9]
The neo-neo debate was a theoretical based debate in 1970s – 1980s, in which
two major views of the international relations discussed the international
system, major actors, and main forms of interaction. Both sides brought their
claims on the table; neorealists argued that states are the main international
actors, international anarchy is a reality and it determines the importance of
security and power for states. States behave rationally, protect their national
interests and face with the unfriendly international environment. International
anarchy has influence on states’ decisions, attitudes and motives.
International institutions play a major role in international relations. And
representative of neoliberalism raised criticisms to neorealist theoretical
assumptions: influential non-state actors cannot be neglected besides states.
International organizations have gained significant power on the world politics
and on the states’ sovereignty. In terms of financial sources and political
impact, multinational corporations have the ability to compete with the states.
In case of domestic policies, states should not be considered as unitary actor,
as the only decision-making processes. Different national actors, institutions,
interest groups involve on the national level policies, and furthermore
different economic entities, local authorities, national political and business
elite are dealing with international partners undermining the monopoly and
directly playing role in the international arena. States’ interests are not
limited with the security and political power it also includes economic
resources and development. And in case of assuring financial welfare, social
stability and friendly external environment, cooperation can be quite important
strategy. Cooperation gives to states the opportunity to meet on the common
ground in order to bring a solution to issues, states may gather for their
national interests not as foes, opponents but as partners.
Although the representatives of the both theories advocated different
views and different perspectives, this debate led and increasing understanding
between neoliberalism and neorealism. While they both explain the international
relations on the rational basis, they also agreed on the research technique;
game theory seemed the best for examination of rational actors’ decision. Yet,
different interpretations of games led to a disagreement on theoretical basis. As a result of this debate, neoliberals and
neorealists came to understand that they share common research interests on
understanding the states’ interests, action, motives, different forms of
interaction and a shared devotion to rationality. They agreed on the existence
and the reality of anarchy in international relations[10]
but they differently interpreted it. And
the hegemonic stability theory allowed both theories to expound the role of
leaders in ensuring stability when a hegemon acts with the support of the
majority of actors, hegemon can enforce rules and regulations. Both theories also appreciate the possibility
of cooperation in several ways. As stated by Kenneth Waltz “In a state of
anarchy, the desire to ensure one’s own safety leads to war or to the
endangerment of one’s own safety”.[11] Thus it is possible to
say that, states would consider the cooperation possibility when their safety
is secured firstly. And neoliberals do
not believe that close cooperation is combative. Keohane argues that, “international
system is anarchic, but normatively regulated too”.[12] It led to a deduction
that, the condition of cooperation reduces the possibility of anarchy and
conflict.[13]
In conclusion, states’ importance as one of the
main actors in world politics cannot be neglected but in today’s world and in
current system, international institutions, transnational corporations and such
entities entered to the international arena with their influence of power, in
other words international cooperation became one of the key element of today’s
international relations. According to Charles Lipson; Rosetta stone of the international relations is usually referred to
the international system and its affection to the cooperation.[14] Hence, both neoliberals
and neorealists institutionalists can deduce their own conclusion from the
structural condition set by what they absorb as an anarchic international
system.[15] And the definition of the
anarchy – anarchic system remains as a problem between these two approaches. Mainly,
power diffusion and emergence of a new power are causing the arise of the
conflicts in the regional and global scope and this situation leads to state of
anarchy. The emphasize on anarchy and the acceptance of the reality of anarchy
in international relations by neoliberals and neorealists in the result of the
neo-neo debate, reaffirms this argument.
Neoliberalism, as one of the main theory in
international relations, essentially argues that, even in the state of anarchy
cooperation can be created by building joint regimes, norms and institutions
with mutual trust. In case of understanding which criterias are important for
states when they tend to cooperate with other states, employment of the game
theory is an adequate mean to explain this question. Primarily in the sense of
absolute gains, this cooperation should seem beneficial for states.
Application of theory to the topic
Regional
conflicts have their own unique challenges to the international community and
international order. These conflicts can be on political, economic or social
dimension in their nature but they are closely tied with a particular
region. After the Second World War,
United Nations, NATO and Warsaw pact specified the international system during
the Cold War.[16]
During the time of this definition of the international system, character of
the system unexpectedly suppressed more regional or nationalistic conflicts.
But, how to approach towards regional conflicts in today’s international system
and how to resolve them?
As
mentioned in the beginning of this essay, race for power seems to be one of the
main sources of conflicts; changes in the international distribution of
economic and military power have caused the emergence of new powers, new
centers of growth in power all around the world. And if we refer to the
beginning of the essay again and remember that, leaders may worry and follow
dangerous strategies in case of the emergence of new powers, the reason for the
news conflicts in the world scene. There are different dimensions regarding to
the definition of the power today. Joseph Nye argues that, power today as
distributed like a three-dimensional chessboard. On the top board of this
chessboard, military power which is beyond the area of realism tends to be a
unipolar world. The middle board is the economic relation which tends to be
multipolar, different powers to balance the superpower. And the bottom board is
the transnational relations, cross-border order or the disorder out of the
governments’ control, the area where lots of actors involved and the
governments are not the main and only actors.[17] The rise of different
forms of powers and regionalism is the sign of the fragmentation of
international order.[18] Conflict formations can
be shaped by the world economy or the strategic and economic penetration of the
major powers but mainly the roots of these conflicts derive from the regional
and domestic circumstances.[19] Hence, such conflict will
tend to draw of the participation of great powers.[20] Nevertheless, Joseph Nye
argues that great powers probably will unite in their view of aggressor as a
factor of threat to the international stability, and this will make aggressor
to find new allies.[21]
Regional
conflict formations have different components, their particular forms include
sustained violent actions such as civil war (e.g. in 1950s in Colombia), border
wars (e.g. in 1968 between Honduras and Salvador) and interventions to other
countries (Vietnam’s intervention to Kampuchea and Tanzania’s intervention into
Uganda in 1970s).[22] Furthermore, extra
regional use of military force which is external intervention can also be
considered by major powers as an option. In case of East-West or such confrontations,
intervention can be unilateral. Joseph Nye indicates that in situation of
regional military conflict, great powers must act to contain the threat and put
down the aggression.[23]
How the
theory of neoliberalism and its principles help to construct particular types
of approaches towards such issues -regional conflicts in the international
relations- ?
Joseph
Nye highlights two sources of power conflict. First, power transition may
prompt some actors to challenge to status quo. Newly emerging powers may attack
to declining ones to secure more favorable status in the international order
whereas declining powers may prefer to suppress the rising competitors.[24] In this regard, it is
quite substantial not to be too fearful about the diffusion of power.[25] States will face with the
transnational issues such as climate change, pandemics, terrorism and cyber
security. These challenges will be more significant by time and they will require
cooperation including the nongovernmental organizations, in some cases. Second,
the nature of power and the methods of its exertion are also important elements
in causing or preventing the conflict.[26] He argues that the use of
military power has become both more expensive and less effective. As he remarks;
rising power have incentives for
territorial aggression then they have had throughout most of history because
the route to prestige, power and economic success in the modern era lies in
high technology, production and human capital.[27]And in order to reveal the difference of the system in today’s
world, he also points out; world politics
today is different from that of the last two centuries. It is now like a three-dimensional
chess game in which interstate military power is highly concentrated in United
States and economic power is distributed in a multipolar manner […]. Thus, a
smart strategy must handle different distributions of power in different
domains and understand the trade-offs among them.[28]
Another
element which can be used regarding to the solution of the regional conflicts
is the international political economy as an international relations
discipline. With the aim of closing the gap between politics and economy, a
group of experts whose members include Robert Keohane, Joseph Nye, Edward Morse
and Robert Baldwin, contributed to this view.[29] It is not possible for
every theory to acknowledge the possible link between economic growth and the
military conflicts between sovereign states in world politics. But through a
liberal view, it is possible to see a relationship between economic development
and peace. Global economy may have the impact on international politics due to
the fact that it shapes interconnected interests of separate states.[30] Consequence is the
intension of the powers to maintain the status quo in international affairs.
The possibility of economic cooperation among states surely will have an
influence to reduce the impact of conflict. If states consider their benefits
in international arena, the most plausible path for them is to pick the option
of cooperation with the absolute gains of both sides. As stated by the liberals
and neoliberal institutionalists (Richard Cobden, J. A. Hobson, Woodrow Wilson,
David Mitrany, Robert Axelrod, Robert Keohane, and Joseph Nye), the cost of war
is much higher than its possible positive results.[31] If states are to rationally
consider their conflicts with other states, they would adopt more peaceful
policies based on the cooperation and mutual benefits. Another main factor in
this case of interstate relations is always keeping the dialogue channels open,
even when the relations are quite tense, sides must bring the matters on the
table and try to cooperate. Admitting the absolute gains represented by
international institutions can be part of the consideration by nation-state
over conflict vs. cooperation decisions.[32] As an outcome of the
cooperation tense and the possibility of conflict will be reduced or
annihilated at all.
In
conclusion, in the world politics and world political economy, possibilities
for conflict among nations have increased as the scope of the state action
widened.[33]
The major threats for world economy and world peace have their roots in the
conflicts among nations. Neoliberal principles and neoliberal institutionalism
can make significant contribution to resolution of the regional conflicts. Rationality
of the states will be an effective factor that will make them cooperate for the
maximization of their gains. Absolute gains will be the result of this
cooperation and both states will gain more than they would lose. And the
importance of the international institutions will appear again; international
institutions will arrange the necessary framework for cooperation and will
stimulate the cooperation.
After
Napoleon’s defeat, The Concert of Europe maintained balance among European
states to avoid future conflicts and war. In time The Concert dissolved and
newly democratic nations rejected to cooperate with the older monarchies. This
dissolution led, in part, to World War I.[34] War followed by the
Treaty of Versailles and the establishment of the League of Nations, tough
requirements of the treaty increased the unrest in Germany, unrest easily
turned to aggression. Requirement of the League for consensus in order to act
made it not possible to respond to member state’s aggression. The failure of
this institution, in part, led to The Second World War.[35] Nevertheless, since the international
system redefined during the Cold War, international institutions have been preventing
the violent global conflicts. With the increasing significance of financial
cooperation, international cooperation among industrialized countries since the
end of World War II has likely been broader than international cooperation
among major states during any period of comparable length in history.[36]
Hence,
in today’s world politics with today’s specific circumstances, cooperation and
institutionalism have the utmost importance in regulating the interstate
relations and protecting the national interests of states, world peace and
status quo. Cooperation dimension of the states’ relationship has much to offer
them, than conflict.
Ozan ÇİFTCİ
St. Petersburg State University
[email protected]
References
[1] Nye, Joseph, Jr. ‘’A game of three dimensional chess game with
China’’, Los Angeles Times, (2013).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Tsvetkova, Natalia, ‘’Russia
and the World’’, Lexington Books, (2017): 34-35.
[4] Maxime, Gomichon, ‘’Joseph
Nye on Soft Power’’, Bristol, (2013).
[5] Tsvetkova, Natalia, ‘’Russia
and the World’’, Lexington Books, (2017).
[6] Ibid
[7] Powell, Robert. “Anarchy
in International Relations Theory: The Neorealist-Neoliberal
Debate.” International
Organization 48, no. 2 (1994): 313-44.
[8] Tsvetkova, Natalia,
‘’Russia and the World’’, Lexington Books, (2017): 22-23.
[9] Morgan, Roger. International Affairs (Royal Institute of
International Affairs 1944) 70, no. 3 (1994): 521-22.
[10] Baldwin, D. A.
‘Neorealism and neoliberalism : the contemporary debate’ (1993) p. 4
[11] Pangle, T. L. ‘Justice among nations : on the moral
basis of power and peace’ (1999) p. 245.
[12] Linklater A. ‘Neo-realism in Theory and Practice’
in Booth, K., & Smith, S. ‘International Relations Theory Today’ p.
249.
[13] Tsvetkova, Natalia,
‘’Russia and the World’’, Lexington Books, (2017): 34-35.
[14] Dominykas, Broga, ‘’What
are the key elementsof theneo-neo debate?’’, Manchester, 2012.
[15] Pfefferle, Tim, ‘’The
neo-noe debate in international theory’’ London, 2014.
[16] Joseph Nye, Jr.,
“International Conflicts After the Cold War,” in Managing
Conflict in the Post-Cold War World: The Role of Intervention.
Report of the Aspen Institute Conference, August 2-6, 1995, (Aspen, Colorado:
Aspen Institute, 1996) pp. 63-76.
[17] Joseph Nye, Jr.,
(2010 February 10) personal interview with Vocke William.
[18] Väyrynen, Raimo.
“Regional Conflict Formations: An Intractable Problem of International
Relations.” Journal of Peace Research21, no. 4 (1984): 337-59.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Joseph Nye, Jr.,
“International Conflicts After the Cold War,” in Managing
Conflict in the Post-Cold War World: The Role of Intervention.
Report of the Aspen Institute Conference, August 2-6, 1995, (Aspen, Colorado:
Aspen Institute, 1996) pp. 63-76.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Väyrynen, Raimo.
“Regional Conflict Formations: An Intractable Problem of International
Relations.” Journal of Peace Research21, no. 4 (1984): 337-59.
[23] Joseph Nye, Jr.,
“International Conflicts After the Cold War,” in Managing
Conflict in the Post-Cold War World: The Role of Intervention.
Report of the Aspen Institute Conference, August 2-6, 1995, (Aspen, Colorado:
Aspen Institute, 1996) pp. 63-76.
[24] Tsvetkova, Natalia,
‘’Russia and the World’’, Lexington Books, (2017): 123p.
[25] Nye, Joseph, Jr. ‘’A game of three dimensional chess game with
China’’, Los Angeles Times, (2013).
[26] Tsvetkova, Natalia,
‘’Russia and the World’’, Lexington Books, (2017): 123p.
[27] Joseph Nye Jr., “International Conflicts After the Cold War,” in
Managing Conflict in the Post–Cold War World: The Role of Intervention (report
of the Aspen Institute Conference, Aspen Institute, Aspen, CO, August 2–6,
1995, 1996), 68.
[28] Nye, Joseph, Jr., ‘’A game of three dimensional chess game with
China’’, Los Angeles Times, (2013).
[29] Tsvetkova, Natalia,
‘’Russia and the World’’, Lexington Books, (2017): 98p.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Keohane,
Robert O. (Robert Owen), 1941-. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the
World Political Economy. Princeton, N.J.:Princeton University Press, 1984. 18p.
[34] Joseph Nye, Jr.,
“International Conflicts After the Cold War,” in Managing
Conflict in the Post-Cold War World: The Role of Intervention.
Report of the Aspen Institute Conference, August 2-6, 1995, (Aspen, Colorado:
Aspen Institute, 1996) pp. 63-76.
[35] Ibid.
[36] Keohane, Robert O.
(Robert Owen), 1941-. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World
Political Economy. Princeton, N.J.:Princeton University Press, 1984. 18p.
- Keohane, Robert O. (Robert Owen), 1941-. After Hegemony: Cooperation and
Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, N.J.:Princeton University
Press, 1984.
- Joseph Nye, Jr., “International Conflicts after the Cold
War,” in Managing
Conflict in the Post-Cold War World: The Role of Intervention.
Report of the Aspen Institute Conference, August 2-6, 1995, (Aspen, Colorado:
Aspen Institute, 1996).
- Nye,
Joseph, Jr., ‘’A game of three dimensional chess game with China’’, Los Angeles
Times, (2013).
- Tsvetkova, Natalia, ‘’Russia and the World’’, Lexington Books, (2017).
- Väyrynen, Raimo. “Regional Conflict Formations: An
Intractable Problem of International Relations.” Journal of Peace Research21, no. 4
(1984).
- Dominykas, Broga, ‘’What are the key elements of the
- neo-neo debate?’’, Manchester, (2012).
- Pfefferle, Tim, ‘’The neo-noe debate in international theory’’ London, (2014).
- Linklater A. ‘Neo-realism in Theory and Practice’ in Booth, K., & Smith, S. ‘International Relations Theory Today’
- Pangle, T. L. ‘Justice among nations : on the moral
basis of power and peace’ (1999).
- Baldwin, D. A. (1993). Neorealism and
neoliberalism: the contemporary debate. New York: Columbia
University Press.
- Maxime, Gomichon, ‘’Joseph Nye on Soft Power’’, Bristol, (2013).
- https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/studio/multimedia/20110211-ethics-matter-political-scientist-joseph-s-nye-jr Joseph Nye, Jr., (2010 February
10) personal interview with Vocke William.
- Keohane, Robert O. “The Demand for International
Regimes.” International
Organization 36, no. 2 (1982).
- Keohane, R & Nye, S. J (1977). Power and Interdependence:
World Politics in Transition. Canada: Little, Brown & Company Ltd.
- Keohane, R & Nye S. J (1972). Transnational Relations and
World Politics. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
- Powell, R (1994) Anarchy in International Relations Theory:
The neorealist-neoliberal debate. International Organisation. 48 (2).
- Kegley, C. W. (1995). Controversies in international
relations theory: realism and the neoliberal challenge.Basingstoke: Macmillan.
On December 25th, 1991 the Soviet flag flew for the last time over the Kremlin. And in that moment, the Cold War had ended. 45 years off stand of between Capitalism and Communism ended essentially with the U.S. victorious. As the Cold War was a war of ideology, this also meant that it was the American idea that prevailed, free market capitalism which was achieved through liberal democracy. Through the 1990’s and into the 2000’s, the U.S. grand strategy was to promote these values wherever possible. By pulling developing nations into the liberal fold, the U.S. was able to shape their economic as well as governmental policy. Using the allure of American wealth and power, policy makers believed that they could attract other states to liberal democracies. Today, 26 years later, the U.S. still has a strategy that is based on curating and maintaining this order as they see it to be vital for the security and prosperity of the United States. Despite new challenges, the U.S. continues to be committed to upholding the liberal world order. This commitment is best shown through its involvement around the world, specifically in the Middle east, and with China.
Bosna Hersek seçimleri 7 Ekim 2018 yapıldı. Siyasi sistemi oldukça karmaşık olan Bosna Hersek’te seçimler devlet, entite ve kanton olmak üzere üç seviyede gerçekleşti. Ayrıca Bosna Hersek Cumhurbaşkanlığı Konseyi’nin Hırvat, Sırp ve Boşnak üyeleri de bu seçimle belirlendi. Seçim sonuçlarına göre Boşnakların en köklü partisi olan Demokratik Eylem Partisi (SDA) adayı Şefik Caferoviç Cumhurbaşkanlığı Konseyi Boşnak üyeliğine seçildi. Bosna Hersek’in iki entitesinden biri olan Republika Srpska’nın Başkanlığını yürüten ve ayrılıkçı söylemleri ile sık sık gündeme gelen Bağımsız Sosyal Demokratlar Birliği (SNSD) lideri Milorad Dodik ise Cumhurbaşkanlığı Konseyi Sırp üyesi oldu.
SDA’dan ayrılan Salko Sokolovic Bağımsız Blok’tan yarışa girdi ancak sonuç elde edemedi. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Konseyi Boşnak üyeliği için yarışan bir diğer eski SDA’lı Senad Sepic de başarı gösteremedi. Sırp Cumhuriyeti Başkan Yardımcılığı için aday olan bir başka eski SDA’lı üye Sadık Ahmetovic de başarı kazanamadı. SDA’dan ayrılanlardan sadece Safer Demirovic Boşnak-Hırvat Federasyonu Parlamentosu milletvekilliğini kazanabildi.
Brüksel’de açıklama yapan ve sinirli olduğu görünen Sırbistan Cumhurbaşkanı Vucic, “Pristina ile görüşmeler devam eder ancak alınan bu yasadışı kararı iptal etmeleri gerekiyor.” dedi. Vucic görüşme sonrasında Sırbistan televizyonu RTS’ye şu açıklamaları yaptı. “Birileri sizi kuzeye silahlı kuvvetler göndermekle tehdit ediyor. Üstüne CEFTA anlaşmasını 10 yıl sonra %10 gümrük vergisi koyarak bozmaya çalışıyor. Bu durumda kim bizden bir şey üzerinde anlaşma bekleyebilir?”
ABD’de yapılan ara seçimin gayri resmi sonuçlarına göre Cumhuriyetçi Parti Amerikan Senatosundaki üstünlüğünü korumayı başardı. Kesin olmayan sonuçlara göre Temsilciler Meclisi’nde ise Demokratlar çoğunluğu elde etti. 435 üyeli Temsilciler Meclisi’nde Demokratlar’ın 230, Cumhuriyetçiler’in de 205 sandalyeye sahip olması bekleniyor.
