رابطه حق بر زبان مادری با امنیت ملی و وحدت سرزمینی مقاله

اقلیت‌های زبانی حق خود بر استفاده زبان مادری را در شکل جمعی و در قالب یک حق نسل سوم مطالبه می‌کنند اما گاه این حق- مطالبه پای در دایره امنیت ملی و وحدت سرزمینی می‌نهد. برخی دولت‌ها بر اساس سیاست‌های امنیتی خویش و با توجه به مقوله وحدت سرزمینی، حق بر زبان مادری را تحدید کرده و درباره حق‌ها بطور کلی و حق بر زبان مادری بطور مشخص، موضع تقابل اتخاذ می‌کنند. لذا پرسش اصلی پژوهش عبارت است از اینکه «رابطه حق بر استفاده از زبان مادری برای گویش‌وران زبان‌های مادری اقلیت با امنیت ملی و وحدت سرزمینی چیست؟» که این پژوهش ضمن بازخوانی همه مفاهیم دخیل در موضوع، با رویکردی تقلیل‌گرایانه در قبال حق گروه‌های اقلیت با تأکید و توجه به ماهیت فردی حق‌ها و مقتضیات تبعیض مثبت در تضمین حق‌های گروهی، به تبیین و دفاع از حق بر زبان مادری اقلیت‌های زبانی و لزوم تضمین آن پرداخته و رابطه این حق را با امنیت ملی و وحدت سرزمینی بررسی کرده و تحلیل نموده ‌است که هر چه گفتمان امنیتی یک دولت به برداشت سنتی با رویکرد سلبی و کالاانگار نزدیک‌تر باشد، امنیت ملی و وحدت سرزمینی بیشتر مورد تهدید واقع شده و در تقابل با حق بر زبان مادری قرار می‌گیرد.

Linguistic minorities often have their own unique lifestyle, culture, and traditions, and they have distinct demands based on their culture. In short, this demand pertains to their right to use their mother tongue, which is different from the right of each member of these groups to use their mother tongue individually. They demand the right to use their mother tongue collectively and as a third-generation right. However, sometimes the demand for this right conflicts with national security and territorial unity. Some governments, based on their approach to the issue of rights, the conflict between them and the public interest and their own security policies limit the right to the mother tongue and take a confrontational and restrictive stance on both the general right and the specific right to the mother tongue, in consideration of the issue of territorial unity. This study aims to explore and explain the theoretical framework of this conflict and its reasons, and to provide strategies for solving this problem by describing and expanding on various theoretical discourses related to the subject. Another goal of this study is to explore some of the concepts involved in this subject and to examine an appropriate theoretical approach to related concepts, which also aids to answer the main research problem. As research backgrounds, reference can be made to the book "Language Rights and Political Theory" by Will Kymlicka, published by Oxford University Press in 2007, and the book "National Security, Human Rights, Political Legitimacy in Fragile Democracies: An Introduction to the Foundations of National Security Law" by Mehdi Rezaei, published by Khorsandi Publishing in 2018.The main purpose of this research is to explain the relationship between the right of linguistic minorities to use their mother tongue and national security and territorial unity? Within this framework, the present study, while reviewing and analyzing all the concepts involved in the subject, by adopting a reductionist approach towards the rights of minority groups and emphasizing the individual nature of rights, and with attention to the requirements of positive discrimination in insuring group rights, explains and defends the rights of minority groups to the mother tongue and the necessity of ensuring those rights. It also examines and analyzes the relationship between the right to the mother tongue and national security, and territorial unity. It shows that the closer a state's security discourse is to a negative and commodity-based interpretation, the more threatened national security and territorial unity will be, and the more it will be in conflict with the right to the mother tongue. The choice of a political-legal system to adopt a security theoretical manifest has a direct impact on the definition and boundaries of national security in that country, and the degree of its democracy and human rights also has a complete impact on the model and approach of its security discourse. Non-democratic and non-human rights systems that adopt traditional discourse in national security not only refuse to tolerate any objections and opposition by the people but also, based on various security pretexts and through "securitization", initiate suppression and threatening of public freedoms and citizens' rights. However, the modern discourse, with a focus on the citizens' demands, internal vulnerabilities, and socio-economic issues, and with regard to pluralism, democracy, and human rights, seeks security through creating national convergence and synergy. The postmodern discourse, on another hand, looks at national security with a focus on global security centered on human beings and from the perspective of fundamental human rights, culture, and cultural issues. Therefore, the two modern and postmodern discourses not only recognize the right to the mother tongue, but also guarantee it and consider guaranteeing it as a booster of national security. Regarding the right to the mother tongue, political regimes with a traditional security approach see this right and its enforcement in conflict with national security, and thus restrict the freedom of linguistic minorities. Non-democratic and non-human rights regimes, with a security-oriented approach, always label linguistic minorities as secessionist forces and with various titles, including labeling them as threats to national security and unity, and territorial unity, and they restrict the freedom to use their mother tongue. It seems that the democratic or non-democratic and human rights or non-human rights nature of a political system determines which security approach and discourse that system has, and it is this discourse that shapes the government's position on the basic freedoms and rights of the people and following that, the path of that political system will become apparent. In the face of the duality of “the existence of linguistic diversity and minorities increases threats and insecurity”, or conversely, “confronting the linguistic freedoms of minorities leads to their dissatisfaction and desire for secession", the proposition of the authors is the second approach; especially since governments that seek security only outside their borders with a traditional security perspective, naturally overlook internal security threats or even consider their source as foreign, and over time, people’s dissatisfaction with the deprivation of their fundamental freedoms such as linguistic freedom will only be one of the problems and dissatisfactions, and economic and social problems will also prevail. at that time, the centrifugal forces due to injustice, economic deprivation, and restrictions on fundamental freedoms will become more apparent. Therefore, in a general proposition, the less democratic a government is and the less commitment it has to human rights, the more traditional and outward-looking its security policies and approaches will become. It will also restrict domestic rights and freedoms, resulting in an increase in centrifugal forces and threats to national security and territorial unity. Regarding linguistic minorities Specifically, the more the governments disregard democracy and human rights, the more probable that they view national security negatively so as to consider threats only from external or foreign roots. By closing these outlets and making the phenomenon of linguistic diversity and minority mother tongues a security issue, they threaten the freedom of using the mother tongue in many aspects. On the other hand, focusing on militarization to gain security at exorbitant costs, neglecting human rights and freedoms, and the absence of a monitoring and desirable balance system for a democratic system will lead to a "crisis of efficiency" and a "crisis of legitimacy" of that political system, which will result in deep economic and social crises and dissatisfaction, especially among minorities. This economic pressure, coupled with severe repression of the freedom to use the mother tongue, will plant the seed of anomie and subsequently, the revival of separatist movements and threats to national security. Thus, the unity of the land and territorial unity will be compromised.