Analysis


The Memorandum Crisis in Armenia and Its Possible Effects on Regional Security

On February 25, 2021, an expected development took place in Armenian politics. Chief of General Staff of Armenia Onik Gasparyan and senior commanders issued a statement which calling for the resignation of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, whom they considered responsible for the loss of the Second Karabakh War and the current situation of the country. It is possible to see the conditions that prepared this development, which is also considered as a "post-modern coup" or memorandum, as an extension of socio-economic problems that could not be resolved since Pashinyan's rule.

President Serzh Sargsyan wanted to change the constitution in March 2018 to stay in power for another 10 years. The "My Name" alliance, led by Nikol Pashinyan, a former journalist and political prisoner, one of the influential leaders of the opposition, won the elections with approximately 70% of the votes. Thus, he was elected Prime Minister in the election race he entered on 8 May 2018 against former GAZPROM employee Karen Karapetyan, who is allegedly supported by Russia. The change in power in Armenia brought along the discussions of "New Maidan in the South Caucasus", and this event was considered as one of the examples of the "velvet revolution".

Pashinyan emphasized that after coming to power, he will give priority to problems such as civil politics, improving the economy and fighting poverty. At first glance, this situation was interpreted as foreign policy would remain in the background. The relative economic recovery experienced in the first years of his rule declined after the COVID-19 epidemic, and Pashinyan's socio-economic-based policies began to be criticized, especially by the Armenian security bureaucracy known as the Karabakh Group and having good relations with Russia. It is alleged that Pashinyan escalated the Karabakh conflict to get the support of the nationalists, who are still influential, in order to overcome domestic political problems; by creating a crisis in foreign policy (rally under the flag). In this process, while the COVID-19 epidemic continued, the de facto Armenian administration in Karabakh took an election decision on March 31, 2020, and Arayik Harutyunyan, who was at the head of the administration, announced that the construction of the third road that would unite Karabakh and Armenia under occupation had begun.

After these developments, the first half of the Second Karabakh War started on 12 July 2020, as Armenia escalated the crisis, as supported by the majority of the international public opinion. Two days before this attack, the National Security Strategy of Armenia was renewed and Armenia shifted from the "land for peace" formula to the "new war for new lands" formula. In the first half of the war, Russia carried out a relatively balanced and diplomatic policy at the beginning of the problem, in other words, it adopted a "wait-and-see" approach. The "44 Day War", which started on September 27 and lasted until the ceasefire on 10 November 2020, brought important developments in Armenian politics. With the defeat of Armenia in the war and the loss of seven Azerbaijani regions under occupation, the Pashinyan government began to be questioned. Demands of the opposition for Pashinyan's resignation and early elections and the increase in anti-Pashinyan demonstrations accelerated the process leading to February 25. After the war, the opposition criticized Pashinyan, and Pashinyan criticized the foreign policy carried out before his rule through the Iskender missiles purchased from Russia but whose effectiveness was questioned, and a day after this criticism, the Chief of General Staff of Armenia Onik Gasparyan and senior officers published a statement inviting Pashinyan to resign. . Pashinyan then wanted to dismiss the Chief of General Staff Gasparyan, but President Armen Sarkisyan twice rejected Gasparyan's demand for his dismissal.

As can be seen from the above developments, the Second Karabakh War deepened the political stance differences between the Westerners and the pro-Russian Karabakh Group in Armenian politics. Although the reactions against Pashinyan have increased, the support given to Pashinyan is close to 40% according to the opinion polls. Undoubtedly, despite the defeat in the Karabakh War, the public support is at a considerable rate; The fact that Pashinyan received more support from Vazgen Manukyan, the opposition's common prime minister candidate, shows that the people of Armenia partially approve of Pashinyan's alternative foreign policy orientations. In this context, it can be expected that the Armenian politics will be shaped by the effect of the defeat in the Karabakh War. However, the internal political developments outside the Karabakh War and the oppression of the government with anti-democratic methods may cause Pashinyan's election victory in the possible early elections. Apart from that, it can be expected that Pashinyan will escalate the Karabakh problem again in order to get the support of nationalists before the possible elections. It is thought that the news about Armenia secretly amassing troops in the Lachin corridor and the exercise of 7500 soldiers by the Armenian Ministry of Defense between 16-20 March 2021 are thought to strengthen this claim.

                                                                                                                                                                                      Asst. Prof. Murat Jane

                                                                                                                                      Political Science and International Relations Department & GLOBDEM Manager

The opinions and information mentioned in the article belong to the author(s) and definitely does not reflect the view of Istanbul Aydın University Tevekkül Karman Global Peace and Democracy Center.



Inclusion of Cyberspace in the Security Field and Cyber Security

Structures such as people, society and the state in need of feeling safe have developed various measures and mechanisms according to the emergence of threats, and have taken many steps to ensure the state of being safe. However, the nature of time, which constantly brings with it new challenges and changes, has further diversified the threats and made security a phenomenon that needs to be constantly updated and reconsidered. In short, evaluating the changes in politics, society, culture and technology with a static reading of security is not sufficient to understand the dynamic time and its innovations, changes and therefore the opportunities and threats that may occur. Based on this, the development in information communication technologies, which increased its speed in the 2000s starting from the 1990s, spread throughout the world and made many private and public services available electronically. Undoubtedly, this new environment, which made life easier, also brought various threats with it, and at this point, we witnessed that the cyber security issue has now evolved into a parameter that should be considered in security readings.

Internet has played the most important role in the development of information communication systems in the late 20th century. Today, the vast majority of the world's population uses the internet. While the world population was 7 billion 593 million as of 2018, the number of people using the internet as of 2018 was determined to be 4 billion 21 million. Although the first target of the emergence of the Internet was to share information, the information systems integrated with each other with the new infrastructure systems created have enabled interaction in many areas from economy to politics, from culture to security, with the effect of globalization. Since it was not predicted that information communication systems and the internet would become so widespread and that people could interfere with the system and create various security breaches and threats, the security side of the cyber field was not sufficiently understood and remained in the background.

When we consider the new dimension of security, cyber danger is not only directed against the state but also against individuals and companies. Because personal, corporate and public life has been digitalized and brought to an online level. Even the 21st century people, who have become integrated into information systems, realize their communication channels almost costlessly, faster, freely and independently from the location, on the other hand, they become open to the threats that can be made through the system. With cyber attacks, it is possible and relatively easy to capture information in information communication channels, and to suffer economic and social damage with this information. On the other hand, companies can suffer great economic losses. The private sector, banking services, various government services, large companies and banks are the main targets of cyber threats, especially in developed countries. Millions of dollars of damage can be caused by cyber attacks on these systems. In addition, cyber attackers who take advantage of system vulnerabilities can engage in these activities with little risk, without leaving much behind.

In particular, cyber attacks can cause highly degrading and irreversible damages. Attacks to a country's critical infrastructures can make life in that country very difficult and even have political consequences for governments. Since electricity generation and distribution systems, oil and gas systems, factories, telecommunication infrastructures, dams, e-government system, national defense systems and national financial systems are integrated with technology and information systems, the consequences of attacks on such critical infrastructures can lead to loss of life and property. Undoubtedly, a state's defense plans, weapons software and inventories can be easily seized with such infiltrations. In addition, there is no obstacle to obtaining various leaks from state archives and using them in a way that could threaten security.

Another aspect of cyber threats is that these threats are carried out by non-state actors as well as by states. In other words, it is revealed at this point that the traditional security approach is insufficient. Because in the 21st century, states are not the only actors that take over and dominate information technologies; Individuals and companies can also have sufficient knowledge and equipment in this area. Likewise, most of the cyber threats are directed not from state to state but from non-state actors to states. Here the aims are varied. Hackers and hacker groups can operate in the cyber space for economic and political reasons, and protest groups to make their voices heard, and criminal organizations for unfair and easy gains. Non-state actors such as individuals, companies, hacker groups have discovered the cyber space before compared to states. The main reason behind the relatively delay in paying attention to this area by states is that they do not see this area as an area that can create security problems. In the light of this information, it is understandable that the first steps of states in the field take place after the detrimental effects of cyber attacks are seen.

It was later understood that the massive explosion that took place in Siberia in 1982 was the result of cyber attacks on natural gas pipelines. Behind the scenes is a Canadian corporation's takeover of pipeline systems in order to circumvent US embargoes by the Soviets. Considering that it had taken over the system completely, Russia could not detect that the USA (CIA) had noticed this initiative. It has been alleged that the USA, which uses a chip called "Logic Bomb" that features a time bomb, placed it in software seized by Russia. The resulting explosion has gone down in history as the biggest explosion ever seen from space. Another incident that can be considered as retaliation for this incident is the Moonlight Labyrinth incident. Here, many research and development projects carried out by the USA in secret, were seized with the cyber attacks against the critical infrastructures of the USA. It was revealed that Russia was behind the incident as a result of the technical follow-up carried out by the USA. According to the Pentagon and the FBI, which carry out the technical monitoring and cyber intelligence gathering operations, the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Energy, NASA, even universities working with the defense industry and defense industry were targeted in this operation, which was carried out with the guidance of the Russian Federation. Apart from these, the attacks on NATO during the Kosovo Crisis, the cyber attacks on Estonia in 2007, the cyber attacks on Georgia, and the cyber attacks called Wikileaks, revealed that states should resort to attempts to secure this area.

As a result, steps have been taken to establish mechanisms and collaborations that will regulate cyber space and take measures against cyber threats under the leadership of both EU countries, the UN and NATO. Thus, as a new parameter for security readings, the cyber field has emerged as a new domination area by states.

                                                                                                                                                                                     Res.Assist. Onur YILMAZ

                                                                                                                 Political Science and International Relations Department & GLOBDEM Manager Deputy Director

 

The opinions and information mentioned in the article belong to the author(s) and definitely does not reflect the view of Istanbul Aydın University Tevekkül Karman Global Peace and Democracy Center.


Iran-EU Relations in Solving the Syrian Crisis

Catherine Ashton, High Representative of European Union for Foreign Affairs, had an official talk with Laricani, Iranian Parliamentary Speaker, during her visit to Tehran on March 8th, 2014. Laricani stated that "We are ready to cooperate with the EU to solve the crisis in Syria" during the meeting in the Parliament building. The details about the meeting were published on the official website of the Iranian Parliament. Giving information about the authority and responsibilities of the parliament regarding external affairs and national security to Ashton, Laricani said "Islamic Council Parliament carefully monitors the subjects about foreign policy and national security with expert commissions. The recent developments about nuclear have been examined in many meetings with the participation of the members of the parliament" at the meeting between Laricani-Ashton. Saying that "The West didn't fulfill its commitments about nuclear as against the goodwill of Iran", Laricani expressed "Now it is time for EU and 5+1 countries to take concrete steps to achieve the common goals".

Asst. Prof. Özüm Sezin UZUN, academic member of Istanbul Aydın University Department of Political Science and International Relations, evaluated Iranian parliamentary speaker, Ali Laricani's statement on the need to take concrete steps for common goals with the European Union and 5+1 countries to solve the Syrian crisis, for TÜRKSAM:

"Cooperation opportunities between Tehran and EU countries were brought to agenda during the visit of Catherine Ashton, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs & Security Policy, to Tehran on March 8th. Iran's nuclear program and solving the other regional issues formed the issues of the meeting. Ashton's visit was important in many aspects. First of all, the process of the relations between the parties is closely monitored in the ongoing negotiation process on Iran's nuclear program. Iran and P5+1 signed a provisional agreement covering the termination of some economic sanctions on condition that Iran suspends its uranium enrichment activities, on November, 2013. Although the final agreement is expected to be completed in July, it is known how difficult this process is. One of the problems that might be encountered in political arena is the attitude of the actors in internal Iranian politics towards the negotiation process in addition to the possible technical difficulties. The discourses of the Iranian officials, saying that Iran will not give up its right to enrich uranium that serves peaceful purposes and the USA still perceives Islamıc values as a thread, might trigger problems. Ashton's visit to Tehran gave the impression of that the purpose of the visit was understanding some Iranian political actors' thoughts about nuclear negotiations within this context. Ashton stated the Syrian crisis is too deep and complicated to be resolved with elections.

Cooperation opportunities for Syrian crisis were also discussed during the negotiations.

Iranian parliamentary speaker Ali Laricani said it is time for EU and P5+1 countries to take concrete steps to achieve common goals. Ashton stressed that the primary issue about the Syrian Crisis is humanitarian aid and Iran has a significant role in this issue. However, we mustn't forget the cooperation opportunities on regional issues including Syria are primarily dependent on the successful continuation of the negotiations on nuclear. Although both sides think that the Syrian Crises can be solved through using diplomatic methods, the differences in their manner of approaching were analyzed one more time. While Iranian officials argued to resolve Syrian Crisis through elections, Ashton stated the Syrian Crisis is too deep and complicated to be solved by elections.  

Are the pragmatic policies of President Rouhani starting a new period of normalization in Iranian-European relations after President Amadinejad's strict policies?

Although Rouhani's policies make contributions to the positive answer of this question, the current affairs in international system also contribute greatly. The increased tension between Russia and Ukraine due to political status of Crimea is very important for the EU. The EU meets approximately 25% of its natural gas demand from Russia, and 80% of this natural gas gets through to the EU through Ukraine. When we take in consideration the Europe's dependency on Russian natural gas and its need to reduce this dependency, Iran is important for Europe not only because of its nuclear program, but also for its natural gas resources. At the same time, it is certain that Iran's petrol export will increase with the success of the negotiations. It is estimated that Iran will increase its daily 1.3 million barrels of petrol export by adding another 1 million barrels in 6 months. Therefore, it would not be wrong to say that the EU-Iran relations are at the beginning of rapprochement process considering the share and importance of Iran in the energy sector. However, the challenges that will prevent this rapprochement from being permanent are obvious. One of the main challenge is the differences in security concerns of both sides, which could hinder cooperation on regional issues and prevent nuclear negotiations from ending with a permanent agreement."

                                                                                                                                                                 Asst. Prof. Özüm Sezin Uzun

                                                                                          Academic Member of Istanbul Aydın University Political Science and International Relations Department


The opinions and information mentioned in the article belong to the author(s) and definitely does not reflect the view of Istanbul Aydın University Tevekkül Karman Global Peace and Democracy Center.

güncelleme: 26.5.2021 12:28