| Abstract [eng] |
This study analyzes the discourse of the Lithuanian parliament regarding the 2021-2022 migrant crisis. The crisis involves migrants coming to Lithuania, along with Latvia and Poland, with the intention of seeking asylum. However, as the crisis was facilitated by Belarus, it was met with hostility by the receiving countries, including Lithuania. The research problem addressed in this paper is the differential treatment of migrants arriving through Belarus compared to previous migrant arrivals in Lithuania, as well as the hesitance or lack of application of refugee law in this crisis. Critical discourse analysis of the parliament transcripts is used in order to uncover the underlying thoughts about migrants held by Lithuanian politicians, as well as understand the link between these migrant portrayals and the severity of migrant containment measures deployed during the crisis. The study accomplishes this by first introducing the theoretical framework, including theories on othering and critical discourse analysis. It then analyses parliamentary transcripts to reveal the constructed image of migrants by politicians and how it legitimizes political decisions. The study also explores the presence of multiple discourses in the transcripts and their potential influence on one another. Lastly, the study examines whether the dominant discourse changed over the period of analysis. The theoretical framework used in this work takes into account various existing research on migrant and refugee othering, including metaphor analyses in a broad spectrum of countries as well as dehumanisation strategies commonly employed in order to justify refusing asylum claims. As suggested by critical discourse analysis, this study operates on the assumptions firstly that looking at discourse can show the underlying power imbalances in society, and secondly that discourse is a tool used to reaffirm these imbalances. The analysis itself covered the Lithuanian parliament transcripts from a 1.5-year period. It was found that parliamentary members used vocabulary that emphasized the negative qualities and unlawfulness of migrants, while avoiding the term "refugee". Secondly, the crisis was depicted as unexpected, unprecedented, and of great urgency. The use of war imagery was prevalent in the discourse, with migrants being dehumanized and compared to instruments of war. Additionally, the discourse portrayed migrants as having unclear intentions, particularly economic ones, and as a general threat to public order. Overall, the analysis revealed a clear pattern of stigmatisation and othering of migrants, with national security being prioritized as the utmost concern. The identified discourse patterns suggest that the migration containment measures implemented by Lithuania stem from an underlying perception of migrants as the "other," depicting them as a perceived existential security threat and as a presence that is not deemed to belong in the country. Moreover, it was found that two migration discourses existed during this period. The second discourse employed much of the same underlying assumptions about the origins of the crisis and the role migrants played in it. However, members of the second discourse emphasized their compassion towards migrants and Lithuania's duty to uphold human rights. It became apparent that the dominant discourse, which positioned itself as the discourse of patriotism and national security, clashed with the alternative discourse. Consequently, the two discourses failed to positively influence each other and, instead, became more polarized. This study contributes to the ongoing academic conversation on migration and refugee discourse by shedding light on the discourse in Lithuanian politics, which has received limited attention. Furthermore, it provides a unique perspective on the discourse surrounding unwanted migration facilitated by a third party, often referred to as hybrid warfare or lawfare. |
