From Traditional to Human Security Understanding: The Case of the BTC pipeline as Militarised Corridor

Emre Iseri

The end of the Cold-War provided a significant opportunity to broaden traditional security concept that narrowly focusing on defending borders of territorial state from external military threats. In that context, the concept of ‘human security’, which broadened the scope of security by shifting its emphasis on people, has pulled a lot attention among scholars. One should note that “human security does not replace but seeks to complement and build upon state security, human rights, and human development.”[1] ‘Human security’ urges states to acknowledge that their security interests are not restricted to protection of their borders, but also their people. In that sense, ‘human security’ encourages a more responsible state, which will be in long-term more stable and at peace with itself. Under some certain conditions, narrowly defined ‘state security’ takes precedence over ‘human security’ interests. Hence, militarization of the state leads to human insecurity. During these times, the state should look for ways to protect its people, at least minimise adverse effects on them. In the light of these arguments, this study aims to analyse Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline as a militarized corridor that undermines ‘human security’ interests by creating regional instability.

From Traditional to Human Security

The significance of the security concept for international relations discipline derives from the state centric political realist claim that “anarchical” character of the international system is responsible for an ever present war possibility.[2] From a political realist perspective, traditional security takes the state as its referent object and defines security to promote ‘state security’. Dangers to ‘state security’ come solely from high-political issues such as external aggressions that derive from inter-state wars. Internal tensions such as hunger and immigration are low-political issues, whereby, they are inferior to high-political issues such as external aggressions. This political realist security conceptualisation has significantly affected developments on the concept of security. Hence, traditionally, security is conceptualised in a narrow manner. “The citizens of states that are secure according to the traditional concept of security can be perilously insecure to a degree that demands a reappraisal of the concept. Human security is a reorientation to redress this asymmetry of attention.”[3]
Before analysing the concept of ‘human security’, one should be familiar with its intellectual background. The end of the Cold-War provided significant opportunity for scholars to widen the scope of traditional security understanding. In that context, critical security studies have found proper environment to question political realist traditional security concept. “Most approaches that are critical of realist and neo-realist perspectives are attempting to move security analysis towards a more comprehensive, less state-centric orientation. Critics of realism question what they see as the zero-sum, dichotomous thinking of traditional national security discourse.”[4] It has been argued that a new ‘world order’ out of international state system would be a necessary step towards a greater security. In a parallel manner to this ‘world order’ approach, Ken Booth asserts that individuals, rather than states, should be the main tenet of security, whereby, claming for an emancipation of security.[5] In that context, R.B.J Walker argues “if the subject of security is the subject of security, it is necessary to ask, first and foremost, how the modern subject is being reconstructed and then to ask what security could possibly mean in relation to it ” [6] than it would be possible to envisage a critical approach. In their co-authored study, Barry Buzan , Ole Waever and , Jaap de Wilde endeavoured to construct “ a wider conceptual net within which the state-centric position is a possible but not a predetermined outcome.”[7]

These intellectual challenges against the traditional security concept have brought ‘human security’, which aims to broaden the traditional security concept by taking individual security as its referent object , to prominence following the United Nations Development Programme’s 1994 Human Development Report.[8] The report indicates that there are two pillars of human security, freedom from want and freedom from threat. For our purposes, we will rely on the latter dimension by taking BTC pipeline as a militarized corridor that undermines regional ‘human security’ interests.

The BTC pipeline as a Militarised Corridor

The BTC pipeline route runs through or near seven different war-zones in the parts of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey. Even though , the pipeline had potential to The BTC route passes just 10 miles from Nagorno-Karabakh, which is the region of Azerbaijan conquered by Armenia following a bloody-conflict that claimed the lives more than 25,000 people and brought forth more than one million refugees in 1994. In Georgia, the pipeline passes through unstable regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia with separatist movements. Moreover, the BTC pipeline is only 70 miles away from the Chechnya region, where conflict prevails. In Turkey, the pipeline runs close to the area of conflict between Turkish state and the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), presently known as Kongra-Gel. From a narrow traditional ‘state security’ perspective, governments of these states have prioritised protection of the pipeline route over ‘human security’ interests. Therefore, they have militarised the pipeline route, whereby, led to several human insecurities.[9] “The past two years of construction have seen continuous opposition from many affected communities in Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey, as villagers have seen roads destroyed, farmland disrupted, homes impacted and poor levels of compensation.”[10] One should note that the official inauguration of the BTC on 25th May does not mean that treat to ‘human security is over. Unfortunately, the threats for human rights are likely to increase. For instance , Alivey government’s violent suppression of opposition rally[11] has revealed that the pipeline will enrich this authoritarian regime in Azerbaijan. In Turkey, “Ferhat Kaya was detained and allegedly tortured in May 2004 as a result of his work with villagers affected by the pipeline.”[12] By militarization of the pipeline corridor, regional states will likely to aggravate similar human insecurities, whereby, exacerbate instability in the region. Hence, these states are not only destabilising the region further, but also infringe upon their security interests.
In conclusion, we aimed to analyse the BTC pipeline as a militarised corridor from the perspective of ‘human security’ in our limited space. Even though we were not able to go into detail, we underlined that traditional ‘state security’ understanding have led Azerbaijan, Turkey and Georgia to militarise the pipeline route, rather than using it as a channel to promote regional ‘human security’ interests. Therefore, these states aggravated regional instability, whereby, missed a significant opportunity to be more stable and at peace with itself in the long-term.
[1] Sadako Ogata & Johan Cels , “ Human Security – Protecting and Empowering the People” , Global Governance , Vol.9 , 2003 , p.275.
[2] See , Kenneth Waltz , Theory of International Politics , Reading , Massachusetts , Addison-Wesley , 1979 , p.121.
[3] Edward Newman , “ Human Security and Constructivism” , International Studies Perspectives , Vol. 2 , 2001 , p. 240.
[4] J.Ann Ticker , “ Re-visioning Security” , International Relations Theory Today , Ken Booth and Steve Smith (Ed.) , Cambridge : Polity , 1995 , p.187.
[5] See , Ken Booth , “ Security and Emancipation” , Review of International Studies , Vol.17 , 1991 ,.313-326.
[6] R.B.J. Walker , “ The Subject of Security” , Critical Security Studies : Cases and Concepts , Keith Krause and Michael C.Williams (Ed.) , Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press , 1997 , p.78.
[7] Barry Buzan , Ole Waever and Jaap de Wilde , Security : A New Framework for Analysis , Boulder : Lynne Rienner , 1998 , p.37.
[8] Human Development Report, 1994, http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/1994/en , Retrieved on 23.11.2006.
[9] See , Baku-Ceyhan Campaign , “ Conflict , Militarisation , Human Rights and the Baku-Tbilisi Ceyhan” , http://www.bakuceyhan.org.uk/more_info/humanrights.htm , Retrieved on 25.11.2006 . Central Eastern European Bankwatch Issue paper , “Azerbaijan-Turkey-Georgia Pipelines” , http://www.bankwatch.org/publications/papers.shtml?x=168018 , Retrieved on 25.11.2006.
[10] Baku-Ceyhan Campaign “Baku-Ceyhan Pipeline Far from ‘Complete' While Threats to People and Environment Remain Unaddressed”, http://www.bakuceyhan.org.uk/press_releases/continued_threats.html , Retrieved on 28.11.2006.
[11] BBC News, “Azerbaijan poll abuses condemned”, 31.10.2005.
[12] Friends of Earth , “ Evidence of Human Rights Abuses Exposed in Turkey” , 29.05.2005 , http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/evidence_of_human_rights_a_29032005.html , Retrieved on 28.11.2006.