Category: Authors

  • Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey: Caught Between Russia and the West

    Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey: Caught Between Russia and the West

    As the war in Ukraine is continuing to cause more devastation and the loss of human life, countries around the world, particularly Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey, had to make difficult choices in their policies, public statements and votes in international organizations. Despite concerns about Turkey’s inconsistent positions, it is clear that neither Russia nor the West is willing to push Turkey to the opposing camp. Pres. Erdogan’s senior advisor, Ibrahim Kalin, pompously told CNN that Western countries have urged Turkey to maintain its ties with Russia, which is highly unlikely. Erdogan was quoted as saying: “we can neither give up on Ukraine nor Russia.” This is described as “strategic ambiguity.”

    Here is my analysis of the repercussions of this war on Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey. Will they be able to maintain their ambiguous positions or will they stumble and lose their delicate balance?

    Let us start with the votes these three countries have cast regarding the conflict. The first vote took place on February 25 at the European Council where Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey are members. Out of the 47 members, only Russia and Armenia voted against the motion to suspend Russia’s membership in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Committee of Ministers. Forty two countries voted in favor. Azerbaijan did not vote. Turkey abstained.

    The next vote came on February 28 in the UN Human Rights Council on whether to include the situation in Ukraine on the Council’s agenda. Out of the 47 Council members, 29 voted in favor and 13 abstained (including Armenia). Russia was probably not pleased with Armenia’s vote. On the other hand, the Charge d’Affaires of Ukraine in Armenia Denis Avtonomov expressed his government’s satisfaction with Armenia’s vote. More importantly, on March 4, the Human Rights Council voted to establish a commission to investigate Russia’s violations in Ukraine. Thirty-two countries voted in favor and 13 abstained (including Armenia). Azerbaijan and Turkey are not members of the UN Council.

    The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on March 2 calling on Russian forces to withdraw from Ukraine. 141 member states voted in favor and 35 abstained (including Armenia). Turkey voted in favor. Azerbaijan did not vote.

    Going beyond votes, Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has the difficult task of balancing his country’s military, political and military alliance with Russia with trying to maintain positive relations with the West. Pashinyan made his first cautious remarks regarding the conflict on March 2: “We are deeply saddened by the unfolding events which are now clear that will have global repercussions. Our hope is that the scheduled Russian-Ukrainian talks will take place and become fruitful, and diplomacy will be able to silence the cannons.”

    Azerbaijan also has its foot in both camps. On February 26, Ukraine’s President Volodomyr Zelensky tweeted twice praising Azerbaijan for supplying $5 million of medicines and ordering Azeri gas stations in Ukraine to provide free fuel to emergency vehicles, just days after Azerbaijan and Russia had signed a treaty of alliance. However, Azerbaijan has not imposed sanctions on Russia, just like Turkey and Armenia. Since Ukraine had supported Azerbaijan politically and militarily prior to the 2020 Artsakh war and the fact that 2,000 Russian peacekeepers are providing security for Artsakh Armenians, the government of Artsakh announced its recognition of the “independence” of the Russian controlled regions of Donetsk and Lugansk in Ukraine.

    Turkey is the only NATO member that has refused to impose sanctions on Russia and kept its airspace open to Russian planes, in order not to lose Russian investments, gas imports, and large income from tourists. Surprisingly, Erdogan approved on March 1 an investment promotion agreement with Belarus which is sanctioned by the West for joining Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. On the other hand, Turkey blocked the passage of some Russian warships through Turkish straits to the Black Sea, as stipulated by the 1936 Montreux Convention. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken expressed his appreciation for the Turkish decision. Nevertheless, Turkey-U.S. relations remain frigid.

    After five of its dozen Turkish drones were shot down by Russia, Ukraine plans to purchase more drones from Turkey which have targeted Russian armed convoys. On the other hand, Turkey had purchased Russian S-400 anti-aircraft missiles causing the United States to sanction fellow NATO member Turkey, blocking its acquisition of the American F-35 stealth bombers.

    On March 1, The New York Times published an article by Carlotta Gall titled, “Ukraine Invasion Increases Friction Between Erdogan and Putin.” She reported that hours before the start of the war, two Turkish planes landed in Ukraine to evacuate diplomatic staff and other Turkish citizens from Kiev. However, the planes and evacuees became stranded, resulting in Pres. Erdogan getting criticized at home for misreading the looming danger and not acting quicker. Erdogan had invited Presidents Putin and Zelensky to Turkey to mediate the conflict. Putin politely declined the invitation. Erdogan shut down several Western media outlets silencing their criticisms of Russia.

    Despite Turkey’s fence-sitting in the conflict, “three Turkish factories and four warehouses in Ukraine were destroyed By Russia during the war. These factories manufactured ammunition and small bombs,” reported the London-based Arabic newspaper Rai Al-Youm. In addition, “a large factory that specialized in building the structures of Bayraktar drones was destroyed.” Ukrainian factories supply engines and other critical parts for Turkish drones. The newspaper quoted an unnamed senior advisor to Erdogan stating that Turkish losses in Ukraine are in the hundreds of millions of dollars and could possibly reach billions of dollars.

    Meanwhile, Erdogan’s son-in-law, drone manufacturer Selcuk Bayraktar, tweeted: “I condemn in the strongest terms the unlawful invasion carried out by Russia in defiance of the sovereignty of an independent nation.” He said he supported “Ukraine and Crimea, the homeland of our Turkish brothers resisting the occupation.” In a second tweet, Bayraktar regretted the “destruction and suffering caused by war.” Turkish citizens pointed out the hypocrisy of a “merchant of death” whose drones have caused so much destruction around the world. He obviously places his business interests ahead of human lives.

    The Russia-Ukraine war has disrupted the norms of international order, forcing many countries, including Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey, to delicately balance their interests on both sides.

  • Grief of all Anatolian people; Christian, Jewish, and Muslim

    Grief of all Anatolian people; Christian, Jewish, and Muslim

    Dear Honorable Members of the House of Commons,

    One-sided pro-Armenian narrative claims that one and a half million Armenians were deported, massacred, or marched to their deaths in the final years of the Ottoman Empire by Turks.

    Although the figures reporting the total pre-World War I Armenian population vary widely, demographic studies prove that prior to World War I, fewer than 1,5 million Armenians lived in the entire Ottoman Empire. British, French and Ottoman sources give figures of between 1,200000 to 1,5 million. Only certain American and dubious Armenian sources claim a pre-war population larger than 1.5 million. Thus, the allegations that 1,5 million Armenians from Eastern Anatolia died must be viewed as grossly exaggerated.

    Moreover, the post-war figures of Armenian population also clearly prove that a great portion of the Ottoman Armenians did not die as claimed. Boghos Nubar , the President of the Armenian National Assembly and the head of the Armenian delegation at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919-1920, declared that some 600.000 to 700.000 Armenians were relocated from Anatolia. And after the war 280,000 Armenians remained in the Anatolian portion of the occupied Ottoman Empire while 100,000 of Armenians had emigrated to other countries.  

    Besides war related causes and intercommunal conflict perpetrated by both Christian and Muslim irregular forces, the totality of documents of the time thus far uncovered by historians verify that during the relocation of Armenians to Syria [an Ottoman province at that time] hundreds of thousands of Armenians had died on account of disease, famine and many other consequences of the war. 

    With these in mind, even if the fabrications about the Armenian losses are corrected, the revised numbers will not tell us the exact manner of death of the citizens of Anatolia, regardless of ethnicity. They were caught up in both an international war and an intercommunal conflict and vengeful acts instigated by the Dashnaks – the irregular group from which today’s active Armenian Revolutionary Front (ARF) was born. This group aided and abetted the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), killing more than 42 Turkish diplomats and their families as recent as the nineteen-eighties and promotes such dastardly acts against Turks and their families even today.

    Additionally, the corrected numbers will not be the complete story of the 1915 events. Truth demands every side of the story to be told. If only one side of the tragedy is to be accepted while the other side is regarded as perpetrators of the same tragedy, this leads us, without a doubt,  into the realms of racial and religious discrimination and of double standards.

    Each needless death, either Christian, Jewish or Muslim, is a tragedy. Equally tragic are the double standards designed to inflame discrimination and provoke hatred. 

    The statistical information tells us that nearly 1,1 million Anatolian Muslims (Turks, Kurds) and Jews also perished because of the same war related events, and this should equally be acknowledged as a tragedy and suffering for all the other peoples. Although the evidence for this is overwhelming and confirms the over a million of loss of life an suffering, the actions of several countries and their Parliaments remember only the Christian deaths and suffering! 

    What happened during this period cannot be considered solely the grief of the Armenians who were harmed and suffered. It is the grief and suffering of all Anatolian people, Christian, Jewish and Muslim. The politicians who ignore these facts sadly display their bias and discrimination against Turks and Turkish Nation.

    The events of  1914-1919 constitute a horrible “war time tragedy” for humanity. Therefore, the pain of Anatolia triggered by the World War I of that period should be shared and, when required, mourned together. 

    Yours sincerely,

    Uluc Gurkan

    Lecturer in Politics

    www.ulucgurkan.net – www.twitter.com/Uluc_Gurkan

    ulucgurkan@ulucgurkan.net – ulucgurkan@gmail.com

    0090 312 4198777 – 0090 532 2180758

    • Deputy Speaker-Turkish Grand National Assembly/TGNA (1995-1999)
    • Vice President-Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe/PACE (2000-2002)
    • Vice PresidentParliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe/OSCE-PA(1992-1995) 
    • Head of the Turkish Delegation-Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European Union/WEU-PA (1999-2002)

              Member- Turkish Grand National Assembly/TGNA (1991-2002)

              Middle East Technical University and Ufuk University (2003-….)

  • Armenian so-called genocide is not established by a final decision of an any international court

    Armenian so-called genocide is not established by a final decision of an any international court

    Dear Honorable Members of the House of Commons,

    Although Timothy Loughton MP claims that there is a general international consensus characterizing the sufferings of Armenians in Eastern Anatolia during World War I as “genocide”, he is completely mistaken. There is no such consensus which would mean “ultimate acceptance” of the Armenian allegations as ”genocide”.

    The Armenian case does not constitute genocide under international law.

    The decisions of international judicial authorities, such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), European Court of Justice (ECJ), European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), and the French Constitutional Court suggest that historic and judicial realities do not confirm the Armenian allegations as ”genocide”.

    In its Perincek-Switzerland decision of December 17, 2013, the ECHR ruled that “the treatment of Armenians during WWI cannot be interpreted as genocide.”
    According to the ECHR, the 1915 events against Armenians are both historically and legally different from the Holocaust. No link can be established between the Ottoman Armenians and the German Jews.

    There is however, ample evidence recognized by competent international courts proving that genocide was committed in Nazi Germany against Jews. Therefore, the Jewish genocide is an indisputable historical fact.

    However, the “Armenian genocide” claims are open to debate and there is no court ruling on the issue. It cannot be considered in the same way as the Holocaust.

    Extending the scope of genocides which is a precisely defined legal concept, to include cases recognized only in political terms in some countries’ parliaments, in fact works against freedom of speech.

    On February 27, 2012, the French Constitutional Council rejected the shameful law approved by the French Senate and Chamber of Deputies that criminalized the denial of the “Armenian genocide.” In its decision, the Council also ruled that “ “No parliament can function as a court relating to a crime defined by itself.”

    It has simply ruled against the amendment No 173 to the existing law on “Equality and Citizenship” which was meant to extend the scope of genocides by adding parliamentary recognitions to the list.

    In 2003 and 2004, the ECJ characterized recognition of the “Armenian genocide” by the European Parliament as “a political measure with no judicial value.” It also ruled that both the “genocide” and “sustained loss” allegations were not proven.
    The ICJ in The Hague – the highest judicial body of the UN, competent to hear war crime cases, including genocide – ruled on January 3, 2012: “Proceedings initiated by local courts against other countries have no judicial value; on the contrary, they are in violation of international law.”

    I would hope that the members of the House of Commons bear these important facts and Court decisions in mind when considering Tim Loughton’s argument and decline to pass this meaningless bill.

    Yours sincerely,
    Uluc Gurkan
    Lecturer in Politics
    www.ulucgurkan.net – www.twitter.com/Uluc_Gurkan
    ulucgurkan@ulucgurkan.net – ulucgurkan@gmail.com
    0090 312 4198777 – 0090 532 2180758

    Deputy Speaker-Turkish Grand National Assembly/TGNA (1995-1999)
    Vice President-Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe/PACE (2000-2002)
    Vice President-Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe/OSCE-PA(1992-1995)
    Head of the Turkish Delegation-Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European Union/WEU-PA (1999-2002)
    Member- Turkish Grand National Assembly/TGNA (1991-2002)
    Middle East Technical University and Ufuk University (2003-….)

  • Russia-Ukraine War: This is What Happens When Compromise is not Achieved

    Russia-Ukraine War: This is What Happens When Compromise is not Achieved

    What is happening right now in Ukraine is the worst possible scenario for both sides, in fact all sides.

    First of all, this is an enormous tragedy for the people of Ukraine who have fallen victim to the Russian invasion which should have been avoided at all costs. No one can justify the destruction of a country and the killing of innocent people. We should support peace, common sense and safety of all human beings.

    Let us ignore the unrelenting propaganda, misinformation disinformation, and hypocrisy which have inundated the media before and during the war. No need to play politics or partisanship with people’s lives.

    Let us now move from emotional statements to the real world which can only be ignored at our own peril. Since the beginning of the world, the powerful has always imposed his will on the weak. There is no escape from this. It has always been this way and will continue to be this way. All those who believe in truth and justice are sadly mistaken. They live in a make-believe world.

    Russia, as a powerful country, felt that it was being threatened by Western powers encroaching on its sphere of influence and wanted to protect its national interests. Whether we agree or disagree with the Russian view is immaterial. This is how the Russians perceive the situation. And when you are a powerful country, right or wrong, you try to impose your will on others, one way or another. The precedent for this situation is the Russian invasion of the Republic of Georgia in 2008 when the latter flirted with the idea of joining NATO. Russia occupies large parts of Georgia to this day.

    Those in the West who have been making sanctimonious statements about big bad Russia attacking an innocent country are conveniently forgetting how the western countries themselves behaved for decades, even centuries. The imperial powers of the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Germany, and Italy went around the world conquering dozens of smaller, poorer and weaker countries, subjugated them, plundered their natural resources, killed and wounded hundreds of thousands of natives, until they rose up and tossed the aggressors out.

    The United States, the self-declared paragon of democracy and human rights, has attacked and occupied several countries in the past imposing its will around the world. The U.S. government has overthrown many leaders who have refused to toe its line and submit to America’s wishes. There are dozens of such examples, the latest of which is Iraq. Who can forget the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, when the Soviet Union deployed nuclear missiles in Cuba, just 90 miles away from the United States? The two countries came to the brink of nuclear war on that occasion. There is also the long-standing U.S. policy of the Monroe Doctrine which states that any intervention in the political affairs of the Americas by foreign powers is considered a hostile act against the United States. How is this different from Putin’s interpretation of Russia’s sphere of influence in Eastern Europe, including Ukraine? Finally, Pres. Biden’s actions against Russia are partially prompted by his intent to raise his record low rating of 37%. The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll showed that only 33% of Americans approve Biden’s handling of the Russia-Ukraine crisis, while 47% disapprove.

    It would have been preferable to engage in direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine to find a peaceful solution to the crisis. As it is often said, “war is diplomacy by other means.” The more outside powers such as the United States, France and the United Kingdom meddled in this dispute, the worst it got, since each of these countries, pretending to defend Ukraine, were in fact pursuing their own interests. The crux of the issue is the disagreement between Russia and the West about an alleged pledge made by the West after the collapse of the Soviet Union that NATO will not expand to Eastern Europe, threatening Russia’s security. Nevertheless, NATO did expand to several Eastern European countries, which Russia viewed as a hostile act.

    Russia decided to impose its will on Ukraine, fearing that if it did not act promptly, Ukraine would join NATO, after which it would be impossible to neutralize the perceived danger, due to the NATO policy of “attack on one member country is deemed an attack on all.”

    There should have been a compromise found on both sides to avoid war. Most people thought that there would be no war and that Russia was amassing troops on Ukraine’s border to pressure it to reach a compromise solution. Regrettably, the Russian attempt to influence Ukraine ended in a full scale invasion destroying large parts of the country’s infrastructure and causing untold casualties. It could be that Ukraine refused to compromise relying on Western assurances that it would come to its aid militarily and economically, if it resisted Russian demands not to join NATO. In addition to providing military hardware and economic assistance, Western countries tried to block Russia’s actions by issuing a series of draconian sanctions, which failed to alter its decision. The hopeful news is that Russian and Ukrainian delegations held their first direct talks on Monday and agreed to meet again.

    Turning to the effects on Armenia of the war and sanctions on Russia, Armenia is caught in the middle of its alliance with and reliance on Russia and its standing with the rest of the world. As they say, when two elephants jostle, the ant gets stomped on, regardless of which elephant wins.

    The biggest problem that Armenia has is the absence of a competent leader who would be able to come up with a skillful solution to extricate itself from this extremely complicated situation. Since the start of the war, Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has not made an official declaration. Nevertheless, on three separate occasions, Armenia has taken sides and made statements regarding this conflict.

    The most problematic action Armenia took was last Friday when the Council of Europe voted to suspend Russia’s membership in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Committee of Ministers. Armenia was the only country that voted with Russia against the measure. Forty two countries voted yes. Turkey shrewdly abstained and Azerbaijan did not vote at all. Western countries will not look too kindly at Armenia’s support for Russia. Likewise, Russia will not look too kindly at Azerbaijan’s and Turkey’s votes. The war in Ukraine is sure to limit Turkey’s ability to walk on a tightrope between NATO and Russia. Azerbaijan’s similar tightrope walk will also be curtailed by not voting with Russia in the Council of Europe, thus undermining the declaration of “allied cooperation” signed on Feb. 22 by Russia and Azerbaijan.

    Secondly, when Armenia’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Vahan Hunanyan, was asked if Armenia will join Russia in recognizing the “independence” of the Ukrainian regions of Donesk and Lugnask, he replied: “There is no such issue on [Armenia’s] agenda.” Putin will not be pleased with that answer. He has many ways to pressure Pashinyan to toe the Russian line in this crisis.

    Finally, speaking at a meeting of the Eurasian Intergovernmental Council in Kazakhstan on February 25, Pashinyan suggested that prompt measures be taken “to minimize or circumvent” the anti-Russia sanctions approved by the West following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

    The anti-Russia sanctions are sure to have a major impact on Armenia’s frail economy as Russia is Armenia’s largest trading partner. As they say, when Russia sneezes, Armenia catches a cold. The $861 million remitted in 2021 by Armenian workers in Russia to their families in Armenia will be sharply curtailed due to the collapsing ruble and increased unemployment.

    There is also a long-standing controversy between Armenia and Ukraine. Both sides accuse each other of betraying their trust and siding with their enemies.  In 2014, Armenia, along with nine other countries, voted with Russia against a UN General Assembly resolution which declared the pro-Russian Crimean referendum invalid. Armenians respond by recalling that Ukraine voted in the General Assembly in 2008, for a resolution demanding the withdrawal of “Armenian forces” from Nagorno Karabagh. President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine announced during the 2020 Artsakh war: “We support Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity and sovereignty just as Azerbaijan always supports our territorial integrity and sovereignty.” Furthermore, Ukraine sold lethal weapons to Azerbaijan prior to the 2020 war.

    One should not forget that there are around 500,000 Armenians who live in Ukraine. When other countries shut down their embassies in Ukraine and withdrew their nationals, the Armenian Embassy continued functioning and Armenian nationals remained in Ukraine risking their lives.

    With each passing day, more innocent civilians are being killed in Ukraine, more sanctions are being imposed on Russia and more ominous threats are being issued. Common sense should prevail before the world reaches a doomsday scenario.

    The only solution is reaching a compromise through peaceful negotiations. Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth will leave everyone blind and toothless.

  • Don’t Let Turks Buy Land in Armenia; Impose Tariffs on Turkish Imports

    Don’t Let Turks Buy Land in Armenia; Impose Tariffs on Turkish Imports

    The Armenian government must take two important steps prior to opening the border with Turkey: 1) Forbid Turkish citizens from buying real estate in Armenia; and 2) Place tariffs on the import of products from Turkey.

    Obviously, Turkish citizens do not have to cross the Armenian border to be able to buy real estate in Armenia. But, with the opening of the mutual land border, more Turkish citizens will be able to come to Armenia, thus increasing the flow of people and products from Turkey.

    Allowing the citizens of a hostile country like Turkey to purchase real estate in Armenia is a serious national security threat, particularly if these properties are located near sensitive border areas.

    There is a big contradiction between what the Constitution and laws of Armenia stipulate regarding the purchase of real estate by foreigners and what is actually practiced. Now that a Constitutional Committee has been set up to reform the existing Constitution, last amended in 2015, this is the right time to reconsider the existing provisions as to who can buy real estate in Armenia. There should be a ban on foreigners’ purchase of properties near Armenia’s border. In addition, citizens of Azerbaijan and Turkey should not be allowed to purchase any kind of property anywhere in Armenia.

    This problem is particularly urgent because several years ago the Turkish government adopted a law that forbade the purchase of property in Turkey by citizens of four countries: Armenia, Cuba, North Korea and Syria. Citizens of another 35 countries are restricted to purchase property in Turkey based on the nature and location of the land. One would think that since the Turkish government has forbidden Armenian citizens from buying land in Turkey, Armenia should have reciprocated by banning the purchase of land in Armenia by Turkish citizens.

    I wrote an article in 2012, informing Armenian officials of the Turkish law that banned the citizens of Armenia from buying land in Turkey and urged “the Armenian Parliament to consider adopting retaliatory measures against citizens of Turkey interested in purchasing Armenian properties.” Regrettably, my suggestion was ignored.

    The 1995 Constitution prohibited foreigners from purchasing land in Armenia. However, this was contradicted by the Armenian government’s subsequent report to the World Trade Organization: “foreigners have the right to own real estate properties built on Armenian land.” The report also stated that “the [Armenian] legislation grants the Government the power to limit and prohibit foreign investment for national security concerns.”

    In line with the Constitution of 1995, the subsequent Armenian Constitutions of 2005 and 2015 also stated that “Foreign citizens and stateless persons shall not enjoy ownership right over land, except for cases provided for by law.”

    If foreigners are not allowed to purchase land or real estate in Armenia, then how were they able to buy them? In 2019 alone, foreigners, contrary to the Armenian Constitution, purchased 186 apartments, 72 houses, two factories, nine public properties and even 121 plots of land. How was this possible?

    Much more concerning is that citizens of the enemy states of Azerbaijan and Turkey have been buying properties in Armenia without any objection. According to the figures released last week by the Armenian government’s cadastre or official registry of real estate, from 2010 to 2021 citizens of Azerbaijan purchased six properties in Armenia, which included five apartments and one public property. During the same period, citizens of Turkey bought 71 pieces of real estate, including 55 apartments, five houses, one garage, seven public properties and three plots of land in Armenia.

    I assume that many of the Turkish citizens who purchased real estate in Armenia are of Armenian origin. I suggest that the Armenian government make an exception for those who are of Armenian origin, if and when the purchase of real estate by Turkish citizens is banned.

    Finally, turning to the import of products from Turkey and other countries, the Armenian government must impose tariffs to protect the viability of domestic production. Since Turkey has a very large population, it is able to produce items much cheaper due to mass scale. Armenian producers, unable to compete with them, will go out of business. Already the Armenian market is flooded with Turkish products. After opening the border, Turkish products will no longer have to go through the expense of importing them via Georgia, which means that they will be even cheaper creating a bigger problem for domestic producers. Making matters worse, the collapsing value of the Turkish Lira has made the prices of imported products from Turkey cheaper.

    Before several sectors of Armenia’s economy are completely devastated, the Armenian government must place tariffs on imported Turkish products to protect Armenia’s vulnerable producers.

  • Armenia Needs Better Counterintelligence To Deter Foreign and Domestic Spies

    Armenia Needs Better Counterintelligence To Deter Foreign and Domestic Spies

    Last week, we were all shocked by the news that Armenia’s National Security Service (NSS) arrested 19 members of the Armenian military on spying charges for Azerbaijan.

    The NSS accused the arrested 19 Armenian soldiers of having transferred classified military secrets to Azerbaijan in return for money. The NSS explained that Azerbaijani agents had contacted the Armenian soldiers by setting up fake Facebook pages with photos of attractive females who communicated in the Armenian language. There are plenty of Azeris who speak fluent Armenian since they were born in Armenia and attended Armenian schools before they fled to Azerbaijan after the civil unrest over Artsakh in the late 1980’s.

    There are several serious security issues that the Armenian government should pay immediate attention to and take special measures to minimize the repetition of such spying cases. But even with improved counterintelligence, such problems may not be eliminated, but simply minimized, since almost all countries fall victim to foreign and domestic spies.

    Here are my thoughts and suggestions:

    1) The Armenian government should take immediate steps to appoint competent experts who know how to run an intelligent service. This suggestion is made because Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has appointed to almost all positions inexperienced and incompetent officials purely based on their membership in his ruling party. The most recent example of incompetence was the surprising announcement by the NSS that they learned from reading a newspaper article that the President of Armenia is a dual citizen which is a violation of Armenian law. Imagine Armenia’s intelligence services learning about such a critical issue from a newspaper after the President was in office for four years, instead of being the first to uncover it.

    2) The National Security Service, besides needing expert personnel, must also have the most advanced counterintelligence technology.

    3) The Armenian government must consult with ally governments on how to improve the training, organization and activities of its intelligence services.

    4) The 19 Armenians who were arrested for spying are accused of transferring to Azerbaijan secret information about Armenia’s military personnel, weapons and military facilities. It remains to be seen if they will be found guilty in a court of law since there have been many Armenian officials arrested in the past four years for committing various offenses, but were not convicted.

    5) How can the Armenian military allow its soldiers to have Facebook pages since everyone knows that they are vulnerable to hackers and can be co-opted by outsiders?

    6) Where was the oversight by Armenia’s intelligent services as the compromised soldiers were transmitting national secrets to the enemy? It would have been best to prevent the transfer of such secrets before they happen, not after the damage is done.

    7) It is highly concerning that such a large number of soldiers of various ranks were arrested. The NSS announced that a total of 24 soldiers were involved in these spying activities which means that there are several other suspects who have not been arrested either due to a lack of evidence or because their identities and locations are unknown. We also do not know how long this spy network has been operating before their arrest.

    8) Even if the remaining members of this spy network are arrested and charged, it does not mean that the 24 suspects are the only ones involved in this spying Network. There may be dozens or hundreds of others whose identities and activities are unknown. As opposed to Armenia, Azerbaijan seems to have a highly competent and experienced cadre of agents who know what they are doing. They are most probably trained and aided by the highly skilled Turkish intelligence services, the MIT (National Intelligence Organization).

    9) One serious aspect of this spying scandal is that some of the arrestees reportedly sold national secrets for a few hundred dollars. There must be something seriously wrong in Armenia’s educational system if an Armenian, born, raised, educated, and serving in the military, is willing to betray his nation to the enemy for a handful of dollars. It is highly concerning that there seems to be a lack of national pride and patriotic sentiments among some Armenians, particularly soldiers.

    10) This is not the first time that spies have been arrested in Armenia. There have been several cases of Armenians spying for Turkey in the past 30 years. Some of them were Armenian government officials.

    11) Azerbaijan announced in the past the arrest of a number of Armenians and Azeris who had allegedly spied for Armenia. It is not known if they were really spies or not.

    12) I fear that the spying problems in Armenia will get much worse with the contemplated opening of the border with Turkey and Azerbaijan. This will allow many more Azeri and Turkish spies to enter Armenia via air and land as tourists or business people.

    13) In addition to actual spies, Azerbaijan and Turkey will collect valuable information about Armenia by debriefing their citizens after their return from Armenia. Of course, spying is not limited to these two countries, as other states are also engaged in gathering intelligence on Armenia.

    14) There have been several cases where Armenians, who have immigrated to Turkey in recent years due to lack of jobs at home, have been approached by Turkish intelligence to gather information on Armenia upon their return home for which they were handsomely compensated.

    In conclusion, antagonistic actions are carried out not only during the war, but also at peacetime by recruiting domestic and foreign agents. The Armenian government must approach this problem very seriously and allocate the necessary resources and personnel to counter such intelligence gathering activities.