Connect with us

Intelligence

Turkey, a grey area of German industrial ambition

Published

on

German foreign minister, Heiko Maas, recently described the Turkish deployment into the Kurdish-controlled region of Syria as an “invasion” that was illegal under international law. His comments come during a time of strained relations between the two nations, with many others in the EU and NATO similarly scrutinising their relationships with Turkey. Despite economic sanctions, international condemnation, and arms trade suspensions, German industrialists still trade heavily with Turkey, even in the field of armaments. German-Turkish arms sales are currently at a 14-year high, with Germany representing Turkey’s single largest arms trader.

An ambiguous partner

Although it is a member of NATO and an important geopolitical ally, in bordering Syria, Iraq, and Iran, Turkey has demonstrated frequently disparate interests to those of its NATO partners.

The Syrian offensive is one example of this. The Turkish army is being deployed to attack Kurdish-led forces in Syria, who until a few months ago were vital in the fight against Islamic State (IS). The wider consequences of this, the increased possibility of conflict between NATO and Russia, the role that pushing out the Kurds could have in any re-emergence of IS in Syria – putting these aside, the Syrian offensive is plainly contrary to NATO’s regional objectives and represents a direct attack on a NATO ally.

The gap between Turkish defence priorities and those of its NATO partners was further highlighted by Turkey’s acquisition of S-400 missile defence systems from Russia. As a result of the Russian missile platform purchase, a fighter jet partnership between the U.S and Turkey was unilaterally cancelled. The U.S made clear that the “F-35 cannot coexist with a Russian intelligence collection platform that will be used to learn about its advanced capabilities”.

Another concern, and a crucial factor in the breakdown of Turkey’s EU ascension ambitions, was the nation’s poor human rights record. Turkey has been accused of unethical treatment of Turkish Kurds and the repression of the Kurdish culture within its borders. Kurdish political expression in Turkey has been strongly repressed by the state.

The Turkish government has also been building a reputation as authoritarian regime and an adversary of the free press. High-profile cases of imprisonment have included the arrest of German citizens and journalists such as Deniz Yücel, Mesale Tolu, and the human rights activist Peter Steudtner. German spokespeople decried the charges for being politically motivated.

“Turkey is neither an ally nor an enemy,” explained Steven A. Cook, a Middle East scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations. The above episodes are but a few of the examples why, though there are many. The ambiguous nature of Turkey’s role as geopolitical ally and trading partner demands that countries carefully re-evaluate their industrial, political, and military ties to it. While Turkey’s record is poor, other world powers must also question their own dealings, particularly those which enable Turkish bad practice, especially through the strengthening of its military.

Germany’s questionable role

Turkey’s track record does not prevent high-profile European industrialist from trading with it, even in the field of armaments. In fact, German arms sales to Turkey totalled €242m last year, almost a third of the German defence sector’s total production. In the first eight months of 2019, arms sales rose to €250m, the highest since 2005.

One of the companies responsible is Rheinmetall, a significant player in German arms production. The company has multiple divisions, producing everything from guns and ammunition, to military reconnaissance electronic equipment and vehicle parts. The company has been trading in guns and ammunition for almost 130 years.

Rheinmetall’s contributions to Krauss-Maffei’s Leopard 2 A4 main battle tank are salient, particularly as Turkey made use of these tanks during its incursions into Syria in 2018. Likely they are being used in the present invasion, or they have been stationed elsewhere in support to allow the deployment of other weapons systems. Either way, both companies have directly contributed to Turkish armaments used in Syria.

Rheinmetall is noteworthy because it is among a select number of German companies which have been looking to expand their presence in Turkey in the wake of the failed coup attempt of 2016. The arms producer entered into an arrangement with Turkey’s BMC, which is 50 percent owned by Qatar, with plans to open a tank factory under the banner of joint venture RBSS. This is particularly troubling as it would likely provide an unchecked distribution channel through which Rheinmetall weapon systems could reach the wider Arabic market, circumventing German arms sales laws.

ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems is a German holding company for a range of providers of naval vessels, surface ships, and submarines. The group has a contract with Turkey to supply 6 of its U-214 AIP-type Reis Class Submarines, capable of firing advanced torpedoes and Harpoon anti-ship missiles.

The deal has started to draw added criticism in the context of Turkey’s continued drilling off the coast of Cyprus. With the EU cutting €146m in EU funds from the pre-ascension purse and halting European Investment Bank activities in the country, some commentators think that equipping the Turkish navy sends the wrong message.

ThyssenKrupp has multiple industrial interests in Turkey, not least of which is a new escalator factory in Kocaeli, a north-western province which has seen rapid, extensive industrial development.

ThyssenKrupp shares this industrial hotspot with around 2000 other industrial firms, among them are Germany’s giants Siemens and Bayer. The Turkish government continues to do little to ensure the well-being of its citizens in the region through enforcement of meaningful clean air and anti-pollution legislation, despite spikes in health concerns.

Siemens opened a factory in 2017 employing around 1000 people and contributing roughly €100m to the Turkish economy. However, as with the many other conglomerates in the industrial zone, the move was not without controversy.

The car maker Volkswagen also has plans of its own to build a factory in Manisa in the west of Turkey’s Anatolia region. While this decision has faced political scrutiny, VW insists that Turkey’s candidacy for EU membership vindicates industrial expansion in the country.

The consequences of supporting Turkish ends

We might not have to wait much longer to see some of the more extreme realities resulting from Turkish misconduct, namely through its involvement in Syria.

Many groups have been voicing concern that the Turkish advance may well seed an IS resurgence. More crucially, it has also strengthened Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, who in the wake of U.S withdrawal and the Turkish-Russian territorial deal, now controls large sections of the Syrian northern border previously held by the Syrian Democratic Forces. This is contrary to NATO objectives, bolstering Russian capacity to act in the region, and securing a cruel dictator his opportunity to continue to break human rights laws, repressing his people for years to come.

“ISIS (Islamic State) has a second life…Russia and the (Syrian) regime will take back all of the territory and Iran has freedom of movement across the region,” said one U.S official in the wake of the brokered deal.

The EU cannot afford to continue its track-record of bluster followed by inaction. NATO members need to carefully weigh the ethical costs of continuing to align themselves with a Turkish president with such clearly dictatorial leanings. In order to do that, countries like Germany need to make certain that they are willing to pay the price in terms of loss of trade and loss of arms sales, to distance themselves from the actions of such malign rulers.

Continue Reading
Comments

Intelligence

Biological warfare: A global security threat

Published

on

Biological warfare is not a new concept in arena of international politics as it has been used as a tool to sabotage enemy in previous centuries. Biological weapons are a sub-category of Weapons of Mass destruction (WMDs) in which there is a deliberate use of micro-organisms like pathogens and toxins to cause disease or death in humans, livestock and yields.Form its usage in 14th century by Mongols to its usage by imperial Japan during 1930s-40s against Chinese, it has always been a threat to global security. The evolution of bio-weapons can be broadly categorized into four phases; first phase includes the post WWII developments with the evident use of chlorine and phosgene in Ypres.The second phase was marked by the use of nerve agents like tabun, cholinesterase inhibitor and anthrax and plague bombs. The initiation of third phase was marked by the use of biological weapons in Vietnam war during 1970s where deadly agents like Agent orange were used. 4th and last phase include the time of biological and technological revolution where genetic engineering techniques were at their peak. Traditionally they have been used in wartime in order to defeat enemy but with the emergence of violent non-state actors, bioterrorism is another potential threat to the security of states. There are certain goals that are associated with the use of biological weapons. Firstly, it is purposed to hit to economy of the targeted country, breaking down government authority and have a psychological effect on masses of the targeted population. It is also a kind of psychological warfare as it may hit a smaller number of people but leaves impact on wider audience through intimidation and spreading fear. It also creates natural circumstances under which a population is induced with disease without revealing the actual perpetrator.

With the advancement in genetic engineering techniques more lethal biological weapons are being produced everyday around the world. Countries which are economically deprived are more likely to pursue such goals as it is difficult for them to go for heavy military sophistication keeping into consideration their poor economic conditions. Biological weapons serve as inexpensive tool for developing countries to address their issues in prevailing international security environment. During the initial decades of cold war, united states of America (USA) and Soviet Union went for acquiring tons of biological weapons alongside nuclear proliferation.

 The quest for these weapons reduced during 1970s with the formation of Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC). This convention was presented in 1972 before countries and finally came into force in 1975 with 150 countries who signed this convention and 140 countries who fully joined this treaty. This convention prohibits any biological weaponization in order to promote peace and stability around the world. But this convention has obvious defects as it is unable to address many issues like it doesn’t prevents itself the use of biological weapons but just reinforces 1925 Geneva Protocol which forbids the use of bio-weapons. Convention allows ‘defensive research’ to which there are many objections that what is incorporated into this defensive research. It is non-binding to the signatory states and in case if countries are proliferating it lacks the effective oversight techniques to look after them either they are pursuing these biological weapons capabilities or not. Since the inception of this convention till now it has clearly failed in stopping the countries from acquisition as well as usage of these weapons. This is evident as there were many cases after 1975 where these weapons were used as in 1980s when Iraq used mustard gas, sarin and tabun against Iran and many other ethnic groups inside Iran. Another incident which was highlighted was Sarine nerve gas attack in Tokyo subway system leaving thousands injured and many got killed. In post-cold war era, however, the number of these attacks reduced as much attention was shifted to terrorism after 9/11 attacks with the change in global security architecture.

“Anthrax letters” in post 9/11 attacks revealed yet another dimension of bio-weapons which was the threat of bioterrorism from non-state actors. US became a victim of bio-terrorism when in 2001 a powder was transported through letters containing bacterium called anthrax infecting many people. One purpose which terrorists have is to make general masses feel as if they are unsafe in the hands of their government which can be best achieved through the use of these weapons. The fact that biological weapons are cheaper and more devastating than conventional weapons make it more likely for biological weapons to be used by terrorists. Also, the fact that they are easy to hide and transport and a smaller quantity can leave long-lasting impacts on larger population makes these weapons more appealing.  Now that we are facing a global pandemic in the form of COVID-19 which according to some conspiracy theories is a biological weapon pose even more serious challenge to the international security in coming decades. There is no such scientific research which proves Corona Virus as a biological weapon but the realization here is that whether or not it is a biological weapon but world was least prepared for it. Not only the developing countries but also developed states suffered more despite having enormous medical infrastructure. The fact that there has been decline in the incidents related to bioterrorism should never let us think that there is no possibility of such attacks. The fact that world failed to handle Covid-19 puts a question mark on the credibility of measures if we are faced with bio-terrorism. The medical community as well as general population needs to develop an understanding of how to respond if there is such attack. At the international level there is a dire need to develop some strong norms which discourage the development and use of such weapons in any capacity.    

Continue Reading

Intelligence

The ‘Post-Covid-19 World’ Will Never Come

Published

on

On May 3rd, the New York Times bannered “Reaching ‘Herd Immunity’ Is Unlikely in the U.S., Experts Now Believe” and reported that “there is widespread consensus among scientists and public health experts that the herd immunity threshold is not attainable — at least not in the foreseeable future, and perhaps not ever.”

In other words: the ‘news’-sources that were opposing the governments’ taking action against Covid-19 — libertarian ’news’-sites that oppose governmental laws and regulations, regardless of the predominant view by the vast majority of the scientists who specialize in studying the given subject — are looking wronger all the time, as this “novel coronavirus” (which is what it was originally called) becomes less and less “novel,” and more and more understood scientifically.

The “herd immunity” advocates for anti-Covid-19 policies have been saying that governments should just let the virus spread until nature takes its course and such a large proportion of the population have survived the infection as to then greatly reduce the likelihood that an uninfected person will become infected. An uninfected person will increasingly be surrounded by people who have developed a natural immunity to the disease, and by people who don’t and never did become infected by it. The vulnerable people will have become eliminated (died) or else cured, and so they won’t be spreading the disease to others. That’s the libertarian ’solution’, the final solution to the Covid-19 problem, according to libertarians.

For example, on 9 April 2020, Forbes magazine headlined “After Rejecting A Coronavirus Lockdown, Sweden Sees Rise In Deaths” and reported that, “Sweden’s chief epidemiologist Anders Tegnell has continuously advocated for laid back measures, saying on Swedish TV Sunday that the pandemic could be defeated by herd immunity, or the indirect protection from a large portion of a population being immune to an infection, or a combination of immunity and vaccination. However, critics have argued that with a coronavirus vaccine could be more than a year away, and insufficient evidence that coronavirus patients that recover are immune from becoming infected again, the strategy of relying on herd immunity and vaccinations [is] ineffective.”

The libertarian proposal of relying upon “herd immunity” for producing policies against this disease has continued, nonetheless.

CNN headlined on 28 April 2020, “Sweden says its coronavirus approach has worked. The numbers suggest a different story”, and reported that 

On March 28, a petition signed by 2,000 Swedish researchers, including Carl-Henrik Heldin, chairman of the Nobel Foundation, called for the nation’s government to “immediately take steps to comply with the World Health Organization’s (WHO) recommendations.”

The scientists added: “The measures should aim to severely limit contact between people in society and to greatly increase the capacity to test people for Covid-19 infection.”

“These measures must be in place as soon as possible, as is currently the case in our European neighboring countries,” they wrote. “Our country should not be an exception to the work to curb the pandemic.”

The petition said that trying to “create a herd immunity, in the same way that occurs during an influenza epidemic, has low scientific support.”

Swedish authorities have denied having a strategy to create herd immunity, one the UK government was rumored to be working towards earlier on in the pandemic — leading to widespread criticism — before it enforced a strict lockdown.

FORTUNE magazine headlined on 30 July 2020, “How parts of India inadvertently achieved herd immunity”, and reported that, “Around 57% of people across parts of India’s financial hub of Mumbai have coronavirus antibodies, a July study found, indicating that the population may have inadvertently achieved the controversial ‘herd immunity’ protection from the coronavirus.” Furthermore:

Herd immunity is an approach to the coronavirus pandemic where, instead of instituting lockdowns and other restrictions to slow infections, authorities allow daily life to go on as normal, letting the disease spread. In theory, enough people will become infected, recover, and gain immunity that the spread will slow on its own and people who are not immune will be protected by the immunity of those who are. University of Chicago researchers estimated in a paper published in May that achieving herd immunity from COVID-19 would require 67% of people to be immune to the disease. Mayo Clinic estimates 70% of the U.S. population will need to be immune for the U.S. to achieve herd immunity, which can also be achieved by vaccinating that proportion of a population.

On 27 September 2020, Reuters bannered “In Brazil’s Amazon a COVID-19 resurgence dashes herd immunity hopes”, and reported that, “The largest city in Brazil’s Amazon has closed bars and river beaches to contain a fresh surge of coronavirus cases, a trend that may dash theories that Manaus was one of the world’s first places to reach collective, or herd, immunity.”

Right now, the global average of Covid-19 intensity (total cases of the disease thus far) is 19,693 persons per million population. For examples: Botswana is barely below that intensity, at 19,629, and Norway is barely above that intensity, at 20,795. Sweden is at 95,905, which is nearly five times the global average. Brazil is 69,006, which is around 3.5 times worse than average. India is 14,321, which is slightly better than average. USA is 99,754.  

However, the day prior, on May 2nd, America had 30,701 new cases. Brazil had 28,935. Norway had 210. India had 370,059. Sweden’s latest daily count (as-of May 3rd) was 5,937 on April 29th, 15 times Norway’s 385 on that date. Sweden’s population is 1.9 times that of Norway. India’s daily count is soaring. Their population is four times America’s, but the number of new daily cases in India is twelve times America’s. Whereas India has had only one-seventh as much Covid-19 intensity till now, India is soaring upwards to become ultimately, perhaps, even worse than America is on Covid-19 performance. And Brazil is already almost as bad as America, on Covid-19 performance, and will soon surpass America in Covid-19 failure.

There is no “herd immunity” against Covid-19, yet, anywhere. It’s just another libertarian myth. But libertarians still continue to believe it — they refuse to accept the data.

Continue Reading

Intelligence

Application of Cyber Security: A Comparative Analysis of Pakistan and India

Published

on

In today’s world, communication is controlled by the internet. The Internet is what links the communication protocol of a state to its cyber domain. Cyber security encompasses techniques, technologies, methods and blueprints made to secure networking systems from potential cyber-attacks. Efficient systems of cyber security therefore mitigate and reduce the danger of network systems being attacked or accessed by unauthorized systems.

Despite the existence of such robust networks and security protocols, the exploit of such systems is always a click away, due to the integration of the internet as a worldwide network, and in times of global outbreaks and crisis, internet activity also inevitably increases. This was particularly observable with the spread of the Covid-19 as a global pandemic, which also saw an increase in over-the-web activity, and gave a new breathing space for cyber-criminals. According to estimates, Covid-19, as a pandemic, can already be classified as the largest ever existing threat to cyber-security across the globe, since the induction of the world wide web as a global chain of networks. Thus, it would be fair to say that the effects of the covid-19 were not selectively felt by developing states only, but also encapsulated great powers of the contemporary era.

While contextualizing Pakistan and India in the cyber-security debate following the events of the covid-19 scenario, the trend in increased virtual cyber-attacks and espionage was no different to the rest of the world. The real question mark lies in the ability of both countries to effectively deal with the overwhelming cyber-activity in the post-pandemic era. The government of Pakistan established the National Center for Cyber Security (NCCS) in June 2018, and continues to strengthen its cyber-security domain, with a dynamic change in policy making, centric to cybersecurity and threats to cybersecurity from its immediate adversary, India. The current Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mr. Imran Khan, also launched ‘Digital Pakistan Vision’, with the primary   objectives of  increasing connectivity, rectifying digital infrastructure, and investing in the awareness of digital skills and promotion of entrepreneurship. Pakistan also approved the first ‘Digital Pakistan Policy’, aiming to focus on investment opportunities by IT companies and building the framework necessary for a digital ecosystem. Although a sustained effort has been made to strengthen the cyber-domain of Pakistan, there are many technicalities and loopholes that must be addressed with high priority. One, the lack of an effective communication method, that is free from external intrusion, and allows for the restriction of unwanted network traffic on its master server. In more recent times, an intrusion occurred during the webinar of Institute of   Strategic Studies (ISSI) due to non-encrypted internet connection, which allowed unspecified individuals access to the digital webinar. Two, the lack of stable internet connectivity, which prevents effective implementation of security protocols and acts as a hindrance to critical data packets, that must be sent between cyber-security officials in an event of a cyber-attack or espionage of any degree. Three, the existence of exploitable source code in key governmental websites and pages that are always prone to cyber-attacks, and must be revisited in the near future.

On the other hand, India saw a 37% in cyber-activity in the wake of the covid-19 pandemic; an eye-opener for state officials, who have prioritized cybersecurity as the next immediate threat to Indian National Security. In recent developments, India has also launched several directives to its cyber-security strategy in the post-pandemic era, including the initiative launched by The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY), namely ‘Cyber Surakshit Bharat’ with the coordination and support of the  National E-Governance Division. According to MIETY, 44 training and mock drills are being given to 265 organizations from different states of the world, a landmark achievement in Indian cyber-security history. However, just like its South Asian neighbor Pakistan, India is also equally overwhelmed by the threat and emergence of hostile cyber-activity. With a 45% ratio of internal cyber attacks, and a 38% ratio of external intrusions from proposed adversaries, China and North Korea, India has strengthened its ties with Israel to revamp its cyber-security strategy,  in order to mitigate the immediate threat to its cyber-domain, both internally and externally.

Conclusion and Recommendations

There is an immediate need to extend and further research the cyber capabilities of both Pakistan and India, which would primarily define the different types of technologies and how they are being actively made a part of the National security policy of both Pakistan and India. These efforts must be the immediate need of the hour, with the uncertainty of the Covid-19 and its irregular patterns becoming an inevitable fate of regional and global politics, in the times to come. While India seems to have its primary bases covered, there is no denying that the Covid-19 pandemic did not have a sparing effect on its cyber-domain, either, leaving the door open for Pakistan to make significant improvements to its cyber domain and cyber-security strategy, in order to effectively deter the threat faced from its adversary. Moreover, Pakistan can also seek inspiration from a potential integrated tri-service defense cyber strategy, that is being highly considered by Indian cyber-security and state officials, which would aid in keeping any form of cyber-hostility at bay in upcoming times.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Defense37 mins ago

UK–Russia Security Dialogue. European Security

Authors: Andrey Kortunov and Malcolm Chalmers* This conference report outlines the main findings of the workshop on ‘European Security’ organised...

Eastern Europe3 hours ago

Relations between Azerbaijan and the European Union

The crises, revolutions, and wars of the first half of the 20th century led to serious geopolitical upheavals, economic crises,...

Europe5 hours ago

When diplomacy cannot get the best of geopolitics: Cyprus’s lack of a way forward

On April 24, people from both sides gather in proximity of the demarcation line splitting the capital, Nicosia, in two....

Reports8 hours ago

Asian Ports Dominate Global Container Port Performance Index

Asian container ports are the most efficient in the world, dominating the Top 50 spots according to the new global...

Middle East11 hours ago

First Aid: How Russia and the West Can Help Syrians in Idlib

Authors: Andrey Kortunov and Julien Barnes-Dacey* The next international showdown on Syria is quickly coming into view. After ten years...

Development14 hours ago

World Bank Supports Serbia’s Move Toward Greener, More Resilient, and Inclusive Growth

Serbia is making strides toward accelerating economic growth that is more green, resilient, and inclusive, by implementing a series of...

Finance15 hours ago

Secrets to Successful Selling Online

Online commerce has opened a new revenue for people to earn money with very little overhead costs. It’s much easier...

Trending