Azerbaycan'ın Dağlık Karabağ politikasında Yerinden Edilmiş Kişilerin (YEK) güvenlikleştirmedeki rolü

In this study, the securitization process of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which emerged between Azerbaijan and Armenia before the dissolution of the Soviet Union is examined and the role of the displaced people in this process are investigated. These people, who had to flee from Nagorno-Karabakh and seven surrounding regions that were occupied by Armenia in the conflict broke out from 1988 to 1994, and dispersed to different cities of Azerbaijan, have a very basic status that forms the backbone of this study: Being internally displaced people (IDPs). According to the United Nations (UN) Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement (GPIDPs), these people are not subject to the same rules of international law and do not have the same rights and responsibilities as refugees. They have had to migrate within the borders of their home countries, and their government has a responsibility to provide them the necessary assistance and protection. Refugees have a life that continues in another country after a breaking point often associated with war. IDPs, on the other hand, are those who have been forcibly displaced within the borders of their country of origin due to armed conflict, generalized violence, human rights violations, and human-made or natural disasters. While there is huge amount of work in the literature on refugees and the securitization process of refugees, less reference is made to IDPs. IDPs are often confused with refugees and some of their specific needs and demands for safety are not given due consideration. Studies in which IDPs are examined in the context of the concept of securitization are rarely encountered. In fact, as these people continue to be citizens of the country in which they live, they take place as subjects of securitization in each of the military, political, social, economic, and even environmental security sectors. However, their roles in the securitization process may change depending on the context and political will. In this respect, the study deals with the less explored disadvantageous group, IDPs, within the framework of securitization theory and aims to make an important contribution to the literature. The study examines Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which is a subject that is widely discussed in the context of military security based on realist assumptions in the current literature, with its historical, cultural, and legal features as a whole. This holistic approach involves understanding and interpreting the problem in depth, rather than merely identifying the problem. It tries to grasp the origins of some historical realities and hostilities/misperceptions and othering efforts without ignoring them. Thus, it aims to provide a perspective for the solution in future studies. In this respect, the dissertation tries to analyze the issue through a constructivist term, beyond the limitations of the realist paradigm as mentioned above. Written from a constructivist point of view, which positions itself at the middle point in the discussion of positivism and post-positivism, this dissertation stands close to critical thinking in this spectrum due to the importance it attaches to historical events, its emphasis on identity-related elements, and its effort to understand the subject. The researcher has a very difficult task in analyzing objectively an ethnicity and territory based conflict in which identity debates are intense and historical enmities prevail. When the securitization dimension of the subject is included in the analysis, the researcher should be more careful and sensitive in acting on moral and ethical principles while approaching the problems. In order to achieve this, attention has been paid to presenting the views of Azerbaijanis and Armenians in an equal and fair manner in every topic discussed throughout the study. The terms or historical data in the study were used not depending on the preference of the researcher, but to serve a better understanding of the subject and depending on its prevalence in the literature. Throughout the study, quantitative data and qualitative data were used to support each other or to question their accuracy. For example, when different figures are reached regarding the population movements in this geography, especially the number of displaced persons, the said data is presented together in a way that allows comparison. A similar situation applies to matters that are often based on qualitative data, over which there is much disagreement. When it comes to these issues, the arguments of the parties are given comparatively and the reader is provided to crossread. The issues that are frequently the subject of conflict between the parties and that are most distorted are actually the issues that are most exposed to the securitization discourse. Therefore, even this situation can be shown as proof that the conflict is securitized at the highest level by increasing the discourses of threat and hostility over the points of disagreement. Since the application of the theory in the study is based on a case study, first of all the concepts (securitization and internal displacement) are investigated in detail and even a chapter is devoted to these two topics. In addition, the criticisms against the theory were carefully reviewed and it was examined whether similar criticisms were also in question in the securitization of Nagorno-Karabakh issue. Speech texts of leaders were examined and their effects on the securitization process were questioned. Historical themes of hostility, real or perceived threats, and stereotypes developed for the other have been tried to be understood through the events or phenomena that securitizing leaders frequently emphasized in their statements. Nagorno-Karabakh issue is a highly securitized ethnic conflict as part of the centuries-old ethnic and land-based policies of Russians over the region, historical dynamics and political culture. Soviet divide and rule policy, nationalities policy and Sovietization efforts continue to show themselves in the deadlock in the internal security problems of the states that gained independence in the wake the dissolution of the Union. The role given to Russia, which played such an important role in the formation and rooting of the problems in Nagorno-Karabakh, historically and politically, regarding the peaceful resolution of the problem seems ironic. Thanks to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Russia is trying to make both Azerbaijan and Armenia dependent on itself for the ―solution‖ of the problem, even after independence, and strengthens its presence in its backyard with the soldiers it has deployed in the region to monitor peace. The threats perceived by Azerbaijan to its sovereignty and territorial integrity in Nagorno-Karabakh issue have a real basis in bilateral state relations or at the regional level. First, Azerbaijan was a state that lost 20% of its territory before the 2020 war due to the Armenian occupation. There is no more real threat than that. However, in addition to real threats, there are alarming perceptions arising from hostile rhetoric, which keep military threats alive and strengthen them. Real or perceived threats between Azerbaijan and Armenia also threaten regional stability, leaving these two states more vulnerable to foreign interventions. Nagorno-Karabakh issue, which has been at the top of their political agendas since their independence, can be a matter of great pride or great destruction/humiliation for Azerbaijan and Armenia. It is not surprising that the rise and fall of Azerbaijani and Armenian leaders coincided with their success or failure in the war. In addition to this, it is possible to benefit from the existence of the issue in domestic politics. Firstly, a failure in Nagorno-Karabakh can turn into a crisis of regime security and legitimacy. The strength of the winner in war seems legitimate. It is thought that the loser in the war is not able to rule the country. Secondly, Nagorno-Karabakh issue can be a maneuvering tool used by the opposition to overthrow or weaken the government. Therefore, in the securitization of this issue, the opposition has a great interest as well as the government. Thirdly, Nagorno-Karabakh issue was effective in seeing other internal security problems of Azerbaijan, which had serious socio-economic problems after independence, as secondary. It is widely believed that prioritizing other issues without overcoming Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which is a survival issue, can have distracting and even challenging/threatening aspects. The securitization of the issue has a great facilitating role in downplaying other issues and avoiding responsibility. Fourthly, will the problems of the IDPs in Nagorno-Karabakh issue or the threats they allegedly create in their new settlements be discussed? This issue is actually related to where IDPs are situated in the securitization process. It is observed that the role of IDPs in securitization discourses varies according to the perspective towards them. IDPs can first be defined as those directly under threat. IDPs are a group that has seen the destructiveness of the war in the face of the Armenian occupation, had to leave their homes, and is still under the threat of attack, both operationally and in the form of propaganda, like all other Azerbaijani citizens. If it is thought that what is threatened in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is the security of the state/regime, the role of the IDPs in the securitization act can also be seen as a functional actor. Functional actors are groups that can affect positively or negatively the securitization process with their presence, unless they are included in the threatened group. IDPs are also audience because they are citizens of that country. They are audiences who endorsed the securitization move, consented to the extraordinary measures implemented by their charismatic leaders. In addition, IDPs may be perceived as a threat in their new settlement areas or in their homelands to which they have returned. This may lead to the emergence of a new securitization process at the societal level. In fact, it is not possible to talk about such a securitization move in the political and social security sector in the example of Azerbaijan. However, it has been argued that there are some contradictions in the way local people view IDPs. IDPs are a good example of indicating the duality of identities. If you are a displaced person, you can be a ―comrade, war victim, victim, warrior, hero‖, or you can be described as ―someone who has fled the war,‖ ―plunders resources,‖ ―deprives local people of job opportunities,‖ and ―disrupts order.‖ Dual identities, which can change according to interests and conditions and are open to be manipulated, are attributed to these people. All these data indicate that the securitization process in Nagorno-Karabakh issue is not unique to one charismatic actor in Azerbaijan, but that there is a constantly self-producing securitization process of historical and cultural differences and points of disagreement borrowed from predecessors and structures. Moreover, this securitization process does not only arise from the rejection of the other, but also strengthens through the discourses produced by the other. Therefore, while the study was being prepared, not only the discourse and policies of the Azerbaijani leaders were emphasized, but also speeches of Armenian leaders were examined. IDPs have always been groups that have not been fully integrated into the society and are dreamed of one day returning to their homeland, no matter how much aid is provided by the Azerbaijani state. This period, in which the return of IDPs due to the military victory of Azerbaijan after the 2020 War is discussed, verifies the importance given by the state to their displacement. The memories were kept alive through the existence of IDPs, the nationalist and patriotic feelings were strengthened, the existence of the enemy was cursed, and it was told that these people would regain their homes and lands on the day of Great Return. Currently, smart villages are established in the territories, which have been liberated from Armenian occupation, and return is encouraged. Return should take place on a voluntary basis and in safety, in accordance with international law and norms, in particular the Guiding Principles. As you can see, displacement is not a one-time process that ends when these people return to their old homes. It also covers the processes of resettlement, integration, and return. In Nagorno-Karabakh example, it can be predicted that problems may arise during and after the return of these people. Who will be eligible to return? Will they be able to find their abandoned homes and other properties in their proper place? Will there be problems in adapting to economic and social life in the places they return to? The Armenian side is concerned that the Azerbaijani citizens returning to their homeland will form a majority in the region and cause a change in status in a possible referendum. Azerbaijan, on the other hand, creates ways to make the return attractive. In South Caucasus, especially in Nagorno-Karabakh, where patriotism and longing are the subject of literary works, stories have both destructive and healing power. It can be assumed that the stories of IDPs will continue to spark any political action to securitize or desecuritize the region. No political leader would want to give up such a narrative power that blends with the fire of trauma.