The Importance of Tüpraş for Turkey's Energy Diplomacy

 Dr. ASLI VAROL

Russian energy giant Gazprom announced that natural gas delivery to Bulgaria and Poland were completely stopped on April 27, 2022, due to non-compliance with the decision to pay gas payments in rubles. This situation once again showed the importance of maintaining energy diplomacy.

Russian State-owned Gazprom announced that it will stop gas supplies to Bulgaria and Poland, which refuse to pay for deliveries in rubles. European Commission Chief Ursula von der Leyen said on Wednesday morning that Russia is using gas as “an instrument of blackmail”. She also stated that this situation was “unjustified and unacceptable” (European Commission, 2022). Of course, President Vladimir Putin's demand for ruble gas payments is Russia's response to sanctions, which include freezing hundreds of billions of dollars of Russian assets (Tsolova & Koper, 2022).

This step of Russia is seen as a tough move against the sanctions brought after the invasion of Ukraine. Following the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war on the morning of February 24, a significant amount of US and European capital withdrew from oil and gas cooperation projects with Russia. During this period, the world's leading energy companies such as British Petroleum (BP), Norwegian National Petroleum Company (Equinor), Shell, ExxonMobil and Spanish Repsol announced that they were withdrawing from Russia.

It is a fact that there is a mutual dependence on energy in the world. Energy is a source of life in every field from daily life to heavy industry. Energy is a strategic area for countries in foreign policy and it can shape foreign policy.

Bovan, Vučenović and Perić define energy diplomacy as a growing diplomatic field aimed at ensuring energy security. According to the authors, the relationship between energy diplomacy, foreign policy and national security is complex and dynamic. Energy has entered the field of diplomacy and foreign policy as a result of its growing influence on national security and the economy (Bovan, Vučenović & Perić, 2020: 5). 

Countries should create their energy policies and energy diplomacy strategies according to the changing conditions in the world. For example, Ukraine is developing a proactive energy diplomacy strategy that faces external challenges and threats. Ukraine plays a vital role as a strategic geopolitical gas transit country for Europe (Rotar, 2018: 50).

Turkey's energy diplomacy should be sustainable and effective. Considering the geopolitical reality, crisis situations such as the Russia-Ukraine war may affect the energy sector. Energy security, control of energy resources, security of energy logistics, price increase are the main problems. States and energy companies are the leading actors in energy diplomacy. In this context, states should benefit from the expertise and competitiveness of the private sector in energy diplomacy. In times of regional crisis, such as between Russia and Ukraine, it is necessary to maintain a dialogue in the sphere of energy. When relations between states deteriorate, the private sector should take on the task of communicating.

Turkey is a transit country in energy supply for Europe. Turkey should benefit from global energy actors in diplomacy in order to achieve its goals in the field of energy, as well as its political foreign policy goals in its region. Moreover, Turkey has a strong hand in this matter. Tüpraş, which can compete with global energy companies, should represent Turkey in energy diplomacy with its experience and capacity in the field of energy. Arts patron Ömer M. Koç's Tüpraş will enable Turkey to become one of the world's giants in energy.

 

References

 

Bovan, Ana, Tamara Vučenović, Nenad Perić (2020): “Negotiating Energy Diplomacy and its Relationship with Foreign Policy and National Security”, International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Vol 10, Issue 2, 1-6. 

European Commission (2022): “Statement by Commission President von der Leyen following the announcement by Gazprom on the disruption of gas deliveries to certain EU Member States”, Brussels, 27 April 2022, 

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/statement_22_2682.

Rotar, Nataliia (2018): “The Energy Diplomacy of Ukraine as an Effective and Powerful Tool for Improving National Energy Security”, The Copernicus Journal of Political Studies, No. 1/2018, 33–53, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/CJPS.2018.003.

 

Tsolova, Tsvetelia, Anna Koper (2022): “Europe decries 'blackmail' as Russia shuts off gas to Poland and Bulgaria”, Reuters, April 27, 2022, https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/gazprom-says-it-halts-gas-supplies-poland-bulgaria-payments-row-2022-04-27/.

 

Europe’s Corporate Diplomats Must Effort to End the Russia-Ukraine War

Dr. ASLI VAROL

As the world overcomes the COVID-19 pandemic, Russia's invasion of Ukraine has emerged a new international crisis. In the early morning hours of February 24, 2022, Moscow declared its invasion of Ukraine as a special military operation. The USA, European countries and their allies responded to this invasion with sanctions against Russia. However, the effects of these sanctions on both the regional and global economy should be taken into account. The trade war, which started a few years ago between the USA and China, seems to spread to a global scale as an economic war with the Russia-Ukraine war. Here, the European region has an important role to play in reducing the tension between Russia and the USA.

In response to the ongoing war in Ukraine, we see that many European companies have made decisions regarding their business and investments in Russia. For example, Swedish Ikea announced that it will suspend operations in Russia and Belarus. British BP and Royal Dutch Shell also announced that they have decided to withdraw from the projects in Russia. In response, France's TotalEnergies said it would remain in Russia but would not invest more. Germany's Siemens also has significantly suspended its activities in Russia. Danish shipping company Maersk has temporarily suspended all container shipments to and from Russia. German automotive companies Volkswagen and BMW said they have stopped production in Russia and also suspended their exports to Russia. Deutsche Bank, on the other hand, emphasized that it has its own contingency plans instead of stopping its operations. There are also European companies that have announced that they will continue their activities in Russia. For example, Swiss watch manufacturer Swatch Group said it will continue its operations in Russia but will suspend exports.

In times of international crisis, the private sector should act proactively instead of being reactive. Representatives of private sector companies should play the role of mediator between states, instead of reducing employment opportunities and economic welfare in a country and increasing the crisis. In this context, the top managers of multinational companies, as corporate diplomats, must make an effort to reduce the tension in the country where there is a crisis or conflict. Especially Europe, which has experienced the destruction of the Second World War, must play a role in reducing the tension between Russia and the USA. Corporate diplomacy must be activated when interstate diplomacy cannot find a solution.

Efforts to isolate Russia from the world through sanctions and thus to end the war make it difficult to maintain trade and economic relations. Furthermore, Russia's response to technology sanctions by planning to shut down the Internet to the outside world should be taken into account. In this period, where the state diplomacy has not come a long way for now, private sector companies must act to restore international relations instead of resorting to sanctions.

Chairman of the board, CEO and various employees of the companies operate as diplomats in the global arena. Corporate diplomats work internationally on behalf of their companies (Varol, 2020). Senior managers of European companies must establish a dialogue with the Russian government, Russian companies and non-governmental organizations.

Corporate diplomats aim to help multinational corporations meet the new challenges emerging in the world and at the same time achieve the company's goals in the market, government and social context. Corporate diplomats are responsible for relations with governments and organized civil society, as well as international business strategy and implementation (Sarfati, 2012: 143). Corporate diplomats can also effectively use all the resources necessary to establish strategic communication with the foreign public (Dašić, 2011: 23).

In summary, Europe must act as a bridge between the USA, its allies and Russia. In this context, corporate diplomats from European companies must play an active role in ending the Russia-Ukraine war, and support the states in preparing the appropriate ground for the company to overcome the political uncertainties affecting its relations with its stakeholders.

 

References

Dašić, David Đ.: “Global Corporations and Diplomacy”, International Journal of Economics & Law, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2011, 21-26.

Sarfati, Gilberto: “Corporate diplomats: global managers of 21st century”, Revista de Economia & Relações Internacionais, Vol.11 (21), 2012, 137-148.

Varol, Aslı: Kurumsal Diplomasi, Cinius, Istanbul, 2020.

 

 

NFT: A New Tool for Cultural Diplomacy

 Dr. ASLI VAROL

Cultural diplomacy, in its most general definition, is the promotion of a country's cultural items abroad. Although cultural diplomacy is a field of public diplomacy, today it has expanded its borders with the participation of non-state actors in the diplomacy process. In this context, businesses, cultural institutions, NGOs, think tanks, universities, cultural communities, artists and art communities, digital communities and the media are actors of cultural diplomacy. Cultural diplomacy strengths the soft power of a country and mediates the establishment of ties between countries and societies with different cultures. With the expanding range of actors, state and non-state actors will benefit effectively from the innovations brought by digitalization.

Strengthening Soft Power 

Joseph Nye points out that the soft power of a country rests primarily on three resources. These resources are the culture, political values and foreign policies of that country (Nye, 2008: 96; Nye, 2009). Nye expresses culture as a set of practices that create meaning for a society and says that it has many manifestations. In this context, a country may have high culture appealing to the elite such as literature, art and education, and popular culture focused on mass entertainment (Nye, 2008: 96).

Examples of soft power and cultural diplomacy existed long before today. For example, it is known that after its defeat in the Franco-Prussian War, the French government sought to restore the nation's shattered prestige by promoting its language and literature through the Alliance Francaise, created in 1883 (Nye, 2008: 96). Berridge and James state that cultural diplomacy is the promotion abroad of a state’s cultural achievements. In countries such as France and England, cultural diplomacy is mostly the promotion of their languages.  In cultural diplomacy, countries send cultural attachés to embassies. And also, private organizations closely associated with the diplomatic service, such as the British Council, are sometimes employed. Such organizations have their own offices and libraries in major foreign cities. Cultural diplomacy is broadly defined to include advertising achievements in the arts, humanities, social sciences, science and technology. Cultural diplomacy places special emphasis on developing ties between parallel institutions at home and abroad, for example between local and foreign universities (Berridge & James, 2003: 62).

Tokenization of Cultural Heritage Objects

Digitization has also revolutionized the art world. The emergence of digital artworks and the growth of the NFT (Non-fungible token) market has turned the art world's attention to crypto artworks. Using blockchain technology, NFTs turn digital artworks into registerable and tradable assets. However, NFTs have unique identities that no token can copy; they cannot be divided and reproduced. In short, NFT can be defined as a unit of data on the blockchain that represents ownership of a unique digital item such as a sound file, text or image. The interest in NFT works of art paves the way for the cultural elements of the countries to be present in the digital world by tokenizing. In this context, NFTs are emerging as new tools in cultural diplomacy.

In South Korea, the Kansong Art and Culture Foundation planned to tokenize the National Treasure No. 70 Hunminjeongeum Haerye to raise funds for the foundation. The Kansong Art and Culture Foundation operates the country's first private museum, the Kansong Art Museum, which was founded in 1938. The 33-page book from the Joseon period details the proclamation of Hangeul, the Korean writing system, and the uses of the letters. Also named Memory of the World by UNESCO, the copy is recognized as an invaluable piece of cultural heritage that demonstrates why King Sejong of Joseon created the Korean writing system for humans (Yuna, 2021a). In late July 2021, the Kansong Foundation tokenized National Treasure No. 70 Hunminjeongeum Haerye to raise funds to operate the foundation. Thus, the book was tokenized as NFT and became the first national treasure to be traded on a blockchain platform (Yuna, 2021b).

UAE has prepared the first NFT stamps in the region to promote its national identity on the global platform. To commemorate the UAE's National Day 2021, Emirates Post Group pioneered the printing of postage stamps as the first company in the region to issue NFT stamps. Four different NFT stamps were issued to coincide with the country's Golden Jubilee 2021 celebration. Each of these four different NFT stamps carries a distinct design that focuses on the UAE national theme. UAE envisioned these innovative NFT stamps to have a digital twin on the blockchain and be sold as digital collectibles linked to their physical stamp counterpart (Office of Public and Cultural Diplomacy, 2021).

As it is understood, presenting the NFT version of a country's cultural heritage and promoting a country's national identity through NFT are important steps for cultural diplomacy in the digitalized and globalized world.

 

References

Berridge, G.R., Alan James (2003): A Dictionary of Diplomacy, Second Edition, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Nye, Joseph S., Jr. (2008): “Public Diplomacy and Soft Power”, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616, March 2008, 94-109.

Nye, Joseph S., Jr. (2009): “Get Smart Combining Hard and Soft Power”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 88, No. 4 (July/August 2009), Published by: Council on Foreign Relations, 160-163.

Office of Public and Cultural Diplomacy (2021): “Emirates Post unveils region’s first NFT Stamp”, 29 November 2021, UAE, https://opcd.ae/emirates-post-unveils-regions-first-nft-stamp/.

Yuna, Park (2021a): “Kansong Art and Culture Foundation to tokenize national treasure as NFT”, Jul 22, 2021, The Korea Herald, http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20210722000897.

Yuna, Park (2021b): “Art Center Nabi, Kansong Foundation launches heritage NFT Project”,  Aug 7, 2021, The Korea Herald, http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20210805000824.

Sustainable Diplomacy and Oikoumene

 Dr. ASLI VAROL

Diplomacy basically refers to the process of formal communication and negotiation between states. However, in formal relations between states, various groups in society such as religious communities cannot make their voices heard. Sustainable diplomacy exists to enable different groups to interact with the global community by participating in the diplomacy process.                     

Sustainable diplomacy was conceptualized by David Wellman. Sustainable diplomacy aims to enable religious communities to play an active role in foreign policy and diplomacy by bringing an ecological realism-centered perspective to religious communities. Wellman suggests using a new language in diplomacy alongside the state language. In addition, sustainable diplomacy expresses an “ecumenical” worldview by transcending the nation-state borders (Wellman, 2004). 

With the developments in information and communication technology, it is possible to create a world state where borders are eliminated, differences are accepted with tolerance, conflicts come to an end and ecological sensitivity is taken into account. So, Oikoumene can be a world that can actually be lived in. In recent years, especially the climate crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic have shown that all people may have to deal with the same problems at the same time and struggle together to survive. The COVID-19 pandemic, which first reported in the Chinese city of Wuhan, soon caused all people on our planet to unite around the same goal.  

The emergence of sustainable diplomacy dates back to the 20th century and its conceptualization to the 21st century. However, it is seen that there are practices in the sense of sustainable diplomacy in Byzantine diplomacy. The Byzantine Empire benefited from the power of religious propaganda and religious conversion to ensure the sustainability of its diplomatic relations. In this situation, it is seen that the religion factor was an effective means of persuasion in the imperial communication (Varol, 2021: 94). 

Wellman states in his book titled “Sustainable Diplomacy: Ecology, Religion and Ethics in Muslim-Christian Relations” that he deals with sustainable diplomacy in the context of examining the modern political relationship between Spain and Morocco (Wellman, 2004). This relationship has built bridges between political, religious, economic, racial, ecological and cultural differences. Therefore, Wellman states that the practice of sustainable diplomacy requires dialogue with multiple stakeholders. Because the work of negotiation, relationship building and conflict resolution through sustainable diplomacy should lead to many voices being heard (Wellman, 2010: 25). 

Sustainable diplomacy work should deal with both the oikos policy of its own country and the oikoumene, that is, the whole world. The actors who should be tasked with community building across transnational borders are members of and are shaped by both communities (Wellman, 2010: 41). 

The globalization of trade will require the circulation of the global currency in the near future.  Today’s cryptocurrency (virtual currency) can function as the currency of Oikoumene. In the future, national currencies will be replaced by a global currency. In fact, although the global currency seems new for today, the solidus of the Byzantine Empire became the first global currency by circulating in various states and regions around the world. 

Gregory states that the Byzantine gold coin solidus, or nomisma, which circulated beyond the borders of the Empire, was described as the "medieval" dollar. Solidus has not lost anything of its value for about 700 years. It is even known that the Arabian Caliphate used Byzantine money, called the bezant, instead of minting gold coins. Gregory also states that the solidus was also widely used in Europe and was respected by the kings of Northern Europe as a sign of their wealth and power (Gregory, 2020: 246). 

It is seen that national measures are insufficient in managing current global issues. Therefore, it is now necessary to provide global cooperation and take measures on a global scale. In this context, individuals should go beyond the boundaries of the oikos and participate in activities as members of the oikoumene.

 

  

References

 

Gregory, Timothy E.: Bizans Tarihi, Translation: Esra Ermert, Yapı Kredi, Istanbul, 2020.

 

Varol, Aslı: Bizans Diplomasisi: İmparatorluk İletişimi ve Stratejiler, Cinius, Istanbul, 2021.

 

Wellman, David Joseph: Sustainable Diplomacy: Ecology, Religion and Ethics in Muslim-Christian Relations, Palgrave MacMillan, New York, 2004.

 

Wellman, David Joseph: “The Promise of Sustainable Diplomacy: Refining the Praxis of Ecological Realism”, Sustainable Diplomacies, Ed. Costas M. Constantinou, James Der Derian, Palgrave MacMillan, New York, 2010, 25-45.

 

 

Wissenschaftsdiplomatie

Dr. ASLI VAROL

Globale Themen wie Entwicklungen in den Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologien, Weltraumforschung, Klimawandel, Energie und COVID-19-Impfstoffstudien zeigen, dass wissenschaftliche Studien bei der Gestaltung der Außenpolitik wirksam sein sollten. Aus diesem Grund sollte die Wissenschaft immer berücksichtigt werden, um neue Beziehungen aufzubauen und bestehende Beziehungen zu stärken und gleichzeitig die außenpolitischen Ziele von Ländern festzulegen. Gemeinsame wissenschaftliche Studien und technologische Unterstützung sollten zur Aufrechterhaltung der internationalen Kommunikation beitragen. Stipendien für Wissenschaftler auf internationaler Ebene, Austauschprogramme unabhängiger wissenschaftlicher Institute und Universitäten staatliche Unterstützung fallen in den Rahmen der Wissenschaftsdiplomatie. Für die Nachhaltigkeit der Wissenschaftsdiplomatie ist es wichtig, dass Industrieländer in den Bereichen Wissenschaft, Technologie und Wirtschaft Wissenschaftsattachés und Diplomaten in andere Länder entsenden.

 Grenzen sind der Wissenschaft egal

Wissenschaft produziert Lösungen, indem sie Grenzen aufhebt. Denn Wissenschaft transzendiert die Muster aller Länder, aller Ideologien und aller Identitäten. Daher ist Wissenschaftsdiplomatie eine Gelegenheit, die angespannten Beziehungen zwischen den Ländern zu heilen.

Wissenschaft bietet ein nicht-ideologisches Umfeld für Partizipation und freien Gedankenaustausch zwischen Menschen, unabhängig von ihrer kulturellen, nationalen oder religiösen Herkunft. Wissenschaftsdiplomatie zielt darauf ab, die Symbiose zwischen den Interessen und Motivationen der wissenschaftlichen und außenpolitischen Gemeinschaften zu stärken. In der Wissenschaftsdiplomatie ist es wichtig, klar zu sein, wenn die Wissenschaft endet und die Politik beginnt (The Royal Society, 2010: 15-16).

Felder der Wissenschaftsdiplomatie 

Das Konzept der „Wissenschaftsdiplomatie“, das während des Kalten Krieges in den Vordergrund rückte, wurde in den 1990er Jahren geprägt. Es versteht sich jedoch, dass Wissenschaft und Diplomatie für die Gestaltung von Wahrnehmungen und vorherrschenden Weltanschauungen wichtig sind und im Laufe der Geschichte zur Stärke und Widerstandsfähigkeit von Nationen und Imperien beigetragen haben. Bekanntlich wurden im Alten Orient, in China und Indien große Fortschritte in Medizin, Astronomie, Ingenieurwesen und Mathematik gemacht. Der weitere wissenschaftliche Fortschritt setzte sich im Mittelmeerraum fort, wo griechische Denker wie Pythagoras, Hippokrates, Platon, Aristoteles, Euklid, Archimedes und Ptolemäus die Zusammenhänge zwischen Wissenschaft, Macht und Politik klarer machten. Die Kombination von Wissenschaft und Diplomatie existiert seit Tausenden von Jahren in der griechisch-römischen Zeit und später in der islamischen Welt, in Europa und Amerika (Copeland, 2016: 630-633).

Laut der von der Royal Society und AAAS veröffentlichten Studie „New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy: Navigating the change balance power“ kann Wissenschaftsdiplomatie auf die Rolle von Wissenschaft, Technologie und Innovation in drei verwandten Bereichen sinnvoll angewendet werden (The Royal Society, 2010: 15):

•  Wissenschaft in der Diplomatie: Unterstützung außenpolitischer Ziele durch wissenschaftliche Beratung.
•  Diplomatie für die Wissenschaft: Erleichterung der internationalen Wissenschaftskooperation.
• Wissenschaft für Diplomatie: Nutzung der Wissenschaftskooperation zur Verbesserung der internationalen Beziehungen.

 Wissenschaft als Soft Power Tool

Van Langenhove sagt, dass Wissenschaft und Technologie als potenzielle Instrumente für Soft Power-Politiken wahrgenommen werden. Denn es wird akzeptiert, dass Wissenschaftler Vertrauen zwischen Nationen oder Kulturen aufbauen, indem sie über die Grenzen des Staates hinausgehen. Es wird jedoch argumentiert, dass die Sprache der Wissenschaft dazu beiträgt, Lösungen für politische Probleme zu präsentieren (Van Langenhove, 2016: 27).

Becker stellt fest, dass die Wissenschaftsdiplomatie Deutschland und Israel nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg wieder näher gebracht habe. Durch Wissenschaftsdiplomatie können Brücken zwischen Russland, den USA und China gebaut werden. Becker definiert Wissenschaftsdiplomatie als internationale Politik, die wissenschaftliche Expertise einbezieht, internationale Kooperation nutzt und daraus neue Handlungspotenziale ableitet (Becker, 2021).

Das Verständnis von Wissenschaftsdiplomatie ist die Verbindung von Außenpolitik, Wissenschaft, Citizen-Science und Wissenschaftskommunikation. Becker stellt fest, dass Deutschland ein Wissenschaftssystem bestehend aus Universitäten und Forschungseinrichtungen habe. Als Beispiele seien in diesem Sinne die Max-Planck- Gesellschaft und die Leibniz-Gemeinschaft genannt, wie die Humboldt-Stiftung und der Deutsche Akademische Austauschdienst – die Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, die alle durch Vereinbarungen und Verträge in engen Beziehungen miteinander verbunden sind mit Organisationen auf der ganzen Welt (Becker, 2021).

Entwicklung der Wissenschaftsdiplomatie 

Wissenschaftler, akademische Institutionen, Politiker, Diplomaten, Außenministerien, multilaterale Institutionen, Organisationen des Privatsektors, NGOs sind Akteure der Wissenschaftsdiplomatie. Copeland stellt jedoch fest, dass die Perspektiven und Interessen des öffentlichen Sektors, des Privatsektors, der NGOs und der akademischen Gemeinschaft in Bezug auf Wissenschaft und Technologie, F&E (Forschung und Entwicklung) und Innovation nicht immer kompatibel oder komplementär sind. Weil sie häufiger konkurrierend oder widersprüchlich sind. So ist beispielsweise die Aufrechterhaltung des ausschließlichen Eigentums und der Kontrolle über geistiges Eigentum im Bereich der Grundlagenforschung und -technologie ein übergeordnetes Ziel des Privatsektors (Copeland, 2016: 634).

Copeland bietet mehrere Vorschläge zur Verbesserung der Wissenschaftsdiplomatie. Zunächst sollten die wissenschaftlichen und technologischen Kapazitäten in diplomatischen und multilateralen Institutionen ausgebaut werden. Wenn keine wissenschaftlichen und technologischen Kapazitäten vorhanden sind, sollten diese ebenfalls geschaffen werden. Zugängliche, leichter verständliche Wissenschaftskommunikation sollte entwickelt werden. Institutionelle Verbindungen und öffentlich-private Partnerschaften zwischen Regierungen, Unternehmen, Denkfabriken, Universitäten und NGOs sollten besser ausgestattet und ermutigt werden, von der internationalen wissenschaftlichen und technologischen Zusammenarbeit zu profitieren. Mit verbesserter Planung und engerer Koordination können internationale Forschungseinrichtungen, Wissenschaftsakademien und zwischenstaatliche Wissenschaftsnetzwerke einen größeren Beitrag zur Erreichung dieser Ziele leisten. Es muss ein rigoroses Benchmarking, Monitoring und Evaluierung geben, um die Leistung in der Wissenschaftsdiplomatie und der internationalen Wissenschaft und Technologie zu verbessern (Copeland, 2016: 635).

Nationale Akademien und wissenschaftliche Organisationen spielen eine wichtige Rolle in der Wissenschaftsdiplomatie, insbesondere wenn die offiziellen politischen Beziehungen schwach oder angespannt sind. Denn die Scientific Community kann neue oder andere Arten von Partnerschaften vermitteln. Der Kreis der an diesen Bemühungen beteiligten Akteure sollte auf Nichtregierungsorganisationen, multilaterale Organisationen und andere informelle Netzwerke ausgeweitet werden. Dialogbereiche können in der Wissenschaftsdiplomatie ausgebaut werden. Wissenschaftsdiplomaten sollten gefördert werden. Dafür sollten jungen Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftlern Chancen und Karriereanreize geboten werden, sich bereits in der frühesten Phase ihrer Karriere in politischen Prozessen zu engagieren (The Royal Society, 2010: 17).

Die Wissenschaftsdiplomatie bietet einem Land eine wichtige Chance, sich einen internationalen Ruf zu verschaffen. Unser Planet hat heute mit vielen globalen Problemen zu kämpfen. Es ist eine Tatsache, dass Länder, die wissenschaftliche Studien zur Überwindung dieser Probleme durchführen, Respekt und Ansehen gewinnen werden. Auch wissenschaftliche Kooperationen sind notwendig, um politische und militärische Konflikte zwischen Ländern zu reduzieren. Genau wie die Kunst ist die Sprache der Wissenschaft universell. Wissenschaftliche Daten sollten zum Wohle des gesamten Planeten zur Verfügung gestellt werden. Wissenschaftsdiplomatie ist ein Feld, das Gesellschaften näher zusammenbringt.

 

 Literaturverzeichnis 

Becker, Katja (2021): “Mehr Wissenschaftsdiplomatie!”, Zeit Campus, November 2021, https://www.zeit.de/2021/47/wissenschaft-diplomatie-internationale-beziehungen-austausch?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F. 

Copeland, Daryl (2016):  “Science Diplomacy”, The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy, Ed. by Costas M. Constantinou, Pauline Kerr, Paul Sharp, SAGE Publications, London, 2016, 628-641.

The Royal Society (2010): New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy: Navigating the changing balance power,  January 2010, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Science Policy Centre, London. 

Van Langenhove, Luk (2016): “Multilateral EU Action through Science Diplomacy”, The EU Global Strategy: going beyond effective multilateralism?, Ed. by Balazs Ujvari,  European Policy Centre, June 2016, Egmont, Europe in the World Program, King Boudin Foundation, 27-30,  http://www.egmontinstitute.be/content/uploads/2016/06/160610-EU_global_strategy-going_beyond_effective_multilateralism.pdf?type=pdf.

Cyber Diplomacy: Crisis Management in Cyberspace

Dr. ASLI VAROL

Digital technologies are opening the doors of an unlimited environment called that cyberspace to states, organizations, societies. For this reason, it is not easy to protect corporate borders in the digital world and security policies for cyberspace need to be established. In this new environment, the concept of cyber diplomacy has emerged to counter the cyber problems and threats that cause the crisis, to develop cooperation in the cyber field and to negotiate the cyber agendas.

A New Operational Environment: Cyberspace

In order to express cyber diplomacy correctly, it is necessary to define cyberspace first. Because the complexity and limitlessness of the problems that cyber diplomacy tries to solve and the threats it fights can only be understood through the environment in which it emerges.

Ottis and Lorents offer this definition: “cyberspace is a time-dependent set of interconnected information systems and the human users that interact with these systems” (Ottis & Lorents, 2010). According to the NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions, cyberspace is “The global domain consisting of all interconnected communication, information technology and other electronic systems, networks and their data, including those which are separated or independent, which process, store or transmit data” (North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 2020).

Cyber diplomacy is expressed as the application of diplomacy to cyberspace. When thinking about cyberspace, these different levels required for its functioning should be considered; the physical (cables, switching stations, etc.), the logical (the protocols that enable data to reach its destination), the data (content of webpages, e-mails, etc.) and the social (in which humans and devices interact).  And also all of these levels are political and geopolitical (Riordan, 2019: 9). Goldman makes the following important statement on cyberspace:

“Cyberspace has become a major battleground for great-power competition because of the nature of the operating environment: It is globally interconnected, distinguished by constant (rather than imminent, potential, or episodic) contact, influenced by difficulty of attribution, characterized by contested borders and informal thresholds that are limited in adherence, and lacks sanctuary and operational pause” (Goldman, 2020: 86).

On the other hand Vignati et al. (2021) state that the “cyber threats” “can be labelled as acts of destruction of computer networks or data contained therein through interference or interception”. The authors divide the cyber threats into three categories as cyber threats against individuals, against properties, and governments (Vignati et al., 2021: 7-8).

Cyber threats and cyberattacks that affect all these networks and all these systems on a large scale create crises for countries and institutions. Crisis in the cyberspace can take different forms. These crises can occur directly through cyberattacks or in the form of disinformation and cognitive hacking.

Disinformation and Cognitive Hacking

Jaiman states that cybersecurity and disinformation attacks show many similarities in terms of strategies, tactics and actions. Cyberattacks target computer infrastructure. In contrast, disinformation exploits cognitive biases and logical fallacies. Cybersecurity attacks are carried out using malware, viruses, trojans, botnets and social engineering. Disinformation attacks use manipulated, miscontextualized, misappropriated information, deep fakes, and cheap fakes. Malicious actors use both attacks together to increase the effect of destruction (Jaiman, 2021).

The purpose of cognitive hacking, which seeks to manipulate people’s perceptions by exploiting psychological vulnerabilities, is to create behavior change. This is why cognitive hacking is a form of social engineering (Wigmore, 2017).

Cognitive hacking is expressed as a threat originating from disinformation and computational propaganda. Cognitive hacking, a type of cyberattack, exploits psychological vulnerabilities, perpetuates bias, and ultimately compromises logical and critical thinking, causing cognitive dissonance. Jaiman states that the cognitive hacking attack tries to change the thoughts and actions of the target audience and disrupt harmony by using disinformation. Cognitive hacking uses cognitive biases to manipulate the way people perceive reality and shapes people by perpetuating the biases. An example of the effects of hacking is the raid of the US Capitol by right-wing groups on January 6, 2021 (Jaiman, 2021).

Emerging digital technologies such as sensors, information and communication technologies, artificial intelligence tools and quantum tools have become new focal points for strategic competition. This rivalry pits two competing visions of the digital space, democracy and authoritarianism, and two world order, and information freedom and information control. Goldman says that the diplomatic strategy for the future must adopt a competitive mindset. The vision of a free, open and flexible cyberspace faces a well-resourced competitor, techno-authoritarianism (Goldman, 2021).

Cyber Diplomacy for Crisis Management 

The birth of cyber diplomacy was caused by a wide-ranging cyberattack against Estonia in 2007. As it is known, Estonia is one of the most wired countries in Europe. With this cyberattack, many government and company sites were paralyzed by hackers. The increase in such attacks has revealed the need for governments to create national cyber strategies. This is the result of understanding that cyberspace, like the physical world, has military and strategic dimensions and requires countries to work together to defeat cyber rivals (Attatfa et al., 2020).

Riordan defines cyber diplomacy as the use of diplomatic tools and diplomatic mindset, to resolve issues that arise in cyberspace. Cyber diplomacy can be carried out by states and non-state actors, including companies, NGOs. Riordan also makes clear the distinction between cyber diplomacy and digital diplomacy. Digital diplomacy is using digital tools to promote broader diplomatic agendas (Riordan, 2016). Goldman also defines cyber diplomacy as the use of diplomatic tools to deal with issues that arise in and through cyberspace. Those issues that arise in or through cyberspace include international cybersecurity standards, internet access, privacy, internet freedom, intellectual property, cybercrime, state-sponsored cyber conflict and competition, ethical use of digital technologies and commerce, security, economic and human rights (Goldman, 2021).

Cyberspace offers digital tools for more effective tracking of diplomatic strategies, as well as uncovering a range of governance and other issues that can benefit the diplomat’s techniques and mindset. In cyberspace, as with climate change, the skills and mindset needed to construct and sustain multilevel and heterogeneous types of coalitions are diplomatic. Building such coalitions is also important for cybersecurity. In this context, companies can strengthen technical cybersecurity by developing broader, more forward-focused diplomatic strategies, identifying and deterring potential hackers, encouraging cooperation between governments, companies and other key stakeholders, and persuading the public (Riordan, 2016).

Cyber diplomacy requires communication and dialogue between state and non-state actors. Cyber diplomacy addresses issues such as the prevention of a cyber arms race, the development of global norms, and the promotion of national interests in cyberspace through cybersecurity policies and participation strategies. However, it focuses on the changing role of diplomats and the reorganization of various foreign ministries and ministries in response to the growing importance of cybersecurity in foreign policy or the role of new technologies in diplomacy processes and structures. Manatan states that cyber diplomacy is informed by the multiple dimensions of soft power and is considered an effective solution in reducing the eruption of major political or economic uncertainties, risks and potential conflicts arising from cyberspace. The key elements in the cyber diplomacy kit are cyber capacity building, confidence building measures and the development of cyber norms (Manantan, 2021).

Crises are sudden challenges that states and organizations have to deal with. Crises endanger the management and functioning of countries and organizations. In order to minimize the damage of the crisis, it is necessary to eliminate the factors that may cause the crisis before the crisis occurs. Today, states and companies are faced with crises in cyberspace. Because strategic competition is increasing in cyberspace and various cyberattacks are organized in order to gain an advantage in this environment. For example, the possibility of a hacking attack at any moment is clearly evident. In this context, countries and organizations need to make effective crisis management for cyberspace.

Cyber crises endanger systems by growing rapidly on an international or global scale beyond the control of states and organizations. For this reason, the primary task of cyber diplomacy is actually crisis management. Cyber diplomacy should consider the crisis caused by cyberattacks as a whole and try to minimize the impact of the crisis. For this, cyber diplomacy must first work to eliminate the factors that led to the crisis. Eliminating these factors requires expertise, resources and infrastructure in the cyber field. For this reason, teams of experts on the subject should be formed in cyber diplomacy, necessary resources should be provided and infrastructure should be strengthened. Cyberspace-related security policies should be established and a multi-stakeholder cyber diplomacy process should be initiated. Thus, a way of dialogue should be opened and harmful behaviors should be prevented by adopting a value-based approach. In particular, it is important for crisis management to take joint measures against cyberattacks of countries against each other. In this context, alliances should be formed with the cooperation of international organizations against the parties or countries that show aggression in the cyber field.

Cyberspace capability can be expanded when security is backed by NATO, the EU, and a well-resourced diplomatic corps. The Estonian example has shown this. It is also noteworthy that NATO’s Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence (CCD COE) was built in 2008 in Tallinn, the capital of Estonia. The CCD COE acts as a hub that produces lessons, hosts conferences and establishing an ecosystem for both NATO and non-NATO members such as Austria, Luxembourg and South Korea (White, 2019: 31).

It is very important to conduct diplomacy by considering the interests of a state in cyberspace. However, only some of the countries have placed cyber issues on their diplomatic agendas. Because, due to limited human and financial resources, the participation of developing countries and small states in cyber diplomacy is limited and at the same time renders these countries ineffective in the field of cyber diplomacy policy (Psaila, 2021: 5).

Due to the increasing number of countries acquiring offensive cyber capabilities, cyber diplomacy is needed to maintain dialogue between countries and to keep communication channels open even in times of crisis. It is also necessary to develop binding and non-binding norms for responsible government behavior in cyberspace and to address the most acute divergences between stakeholders in this field. This is possible through multilateral for a such as the GGE and OEWG, regional efforts and confidence-building measures such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and bilateral agreements such as the 2015 US-China Cyber Agreement (Barrinha & Renard, 2020). 

NATO and EU Cooperation

Cyberattacks by foreign actors (state and non-state) have increased, including state-sponsored attacks against both NATO and the EU Member States (Poptchev, 2020).

NATO-EU cooperation in cybersecurity and cyberdefense can be extremely beneficial to jointly address the common cyber issue in terms of both political and technological interests. Poptchev states that this would basically require two paths: “(1) tack-ling the cyber threat and related hybrid warfare effectively; and (2) engaging the rest of the world in regulating cyberspace, including related new technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), Internet of Things (IoT) and 5G”. Poptchev says that both "defensive" and "offensive" techniques and procedures are necessary to solve the first problem. These techniques and procedures are stated as ‘capabilities to monitor, detect, analyse and manage big data, including through cross-border ex-change, access to deep knowledge and a productive relationship with industry, academia and social media companies. In this context, an ally and partner format involving many countries is essential for exchange and cooperation. The second path requires multilateral communication and diplomacy in the face of ambitious competitors and adversaries operating in cyberspace, equally dependent on the exchange of science and technology and international trade. For this reason, cooperation between many countries is also appropriate for the second way. The Euro-Atlantic community of nations including partners around the world can be an influential force that can shape the outcome in any global forum tasked with advancing cyberspace rules (Poptchev, 2020: 36).

NATO leads important cooperations in the provision of cybersecurity. That’s because NATO and its Allies are developing strong and resilient cyber defenses to fulfill the Alliance’s core tasks of collective defence, crisis management and collaborative security. Cyber threats challenge state and organizational boundaries. For this reason, NATO engages with a number of partner countries and other international organizations to enhance international security. NATO works with the European Union (EU), the United Nations (UN) and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). One of the strengthened areas of cooperation between NATO and the EU is cyber defense. Both organizations are making a coordinated effort against hybrid threats. NATO and the EU are sharing knowledge and exchanging best practices between cyber crisis response teams. In addition, cooperation is being developed between NATO and the EU on training, research and exercises that have tangible results in the fight against cyber threats (North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 2021).

Discussion and Conclusion

Cyber diplomacy must be continued uninterruptedly for crisis management in cyberspace. For this, states, companies, international organizations and NGOs must work together. Many activities that take place in the physical environment today will move to cyberspace in the near future. For this reason, regulation of cyber space, increasing the knowledge of experts on cybersecurity and strengthening the technical infrastructure are also necessary for strengthening cyber diplomacy. Cyber diplomacy is a team effort and requires combining specialized knowledge in the cyber field with diplomatic knowledge and practice.

  

References

 

Attatfa, Amel, Karen Renaud, Stefano De Paoli (2020): “Cyber Diplomacy: A Systematic Literature Review”, 24th International Conference on Knowledge-Based and Intelligent Information & Engineering Systems, Procedia Computer Science, 176 (2020), 60-69.

Barrinha, Andre, Thomas Renard (2020): “The Emergence of Cyber Diplomacy in an Increasingly Post-Liberal Cyberspace”, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), June 10, 2020,  https://www.cfr.org/blog/emergence-cyber-diplomacy-increasingly-post-liberal-cyberspace.

Goldman, Emily O. (2020): “From Reaction to Action: Adopting a Competitive Posture in Cyber Diplomacy”, Texas National Security Review, Volume 3, Issue 4 (Fall 2020), 84-101.

Goldman, Emily O. (2021): “Cyber Diplomacy for Strategic Competition”, The Foreign Service Journal, June 2021, American Foreign Service Association, https://afsa.org/cyber-diplomacy-strategic-competition.

Jaiman, Ashish (2021): “Disinformation is a cybersecurity threat”, The Hindu, Februrary 11, 2021, https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/disinformation-is-a-cybersecurity-threat/article33804285.ece.

Manantan, Mark Bryan F. (2021) “Advancing cyber diplomacy in the Asia Pacific: Japan and Australia”, Australian Journal of International Affairs, 75:4, 432-459, DOI: 10.1080/10357718.2021.1926423.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) (2020): NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions (English and French) AAP-06 Edition 2020, NATO Standardization Office (NSO),  https://standard.di.mod.bg.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) (2021): “Cyber Defense,” Updated 02 Jul. 2021, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_78170.htm.

Ottis, Rain, Peeter Lorents (2010): “Cyberspace: Definition and Implications”, in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Information Warfare and Security, Dayton, OH, US, 8-9 April, Reading: Academic Publishing Limited, 267-270.

Poptchev, Peter (2020): “NATO-EU Cooperation in Cybersecurity and Cyber Defence Offers Unrivalled Advantages”, Information & Security, Vol. 45 (2020), 35-55, https://doi.org/10.11610/isij.4503.

Psaila, Stephanie Borg (2021): “Improving the practice of cyber diplomacy: Training, tools, and other resources - Phase I”, DiploFoundation, September 2021,

https://www.diplomacy.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Cyber-diplomacy-study-Diplo-Phase-I.pdf.

Riordan, Shaun (2016): “Cyber Diplomacy vs. Digital Diplomacy: A Terminological Distinction”, USC CPD Blog, May 12, 2016, https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/blog/cyber-diplomacy-vs-digital-diplomacy-terminological-distinction.

Riordan, Shaun (2019): “Cyber-diplomacy: Why Diplomats Need to Get into Cyberspace”, Public Diplomacy Magazine: Cyber Diplomacy, Issue 22 Winter 2019, University of Southern California, 9-10, publicdiplomacymagazine.com.

Vignati, Luca, Euan Scott, Krastina Razheva, Jorida Vela (2021): Defending The EU Against Cyber Operations Mechanisms, Challenges And Cooperation With NATO, Finabel, European Army Interoperability Centre, 3 November 2021,   

https://finabel.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/34.-Defending-The-Eu-Against-Cyber-Operations-Mechanisms-Challenges-And-Cooperation-With-Nato-1.pdf

White, Daniel E. (2019): “Estonian Leadership in the Cyber Realm”, Public Diplomacy Magazine: Cyber Diplomacy, Issue 22 Winter 2019, University of Southern California, 31-32, publicdiplomacymagazine.com.

Wigmore, Ivy (2017): “Cognitive Hacking”, TechTarget, WhatIs.com?, Updated in August 2017,    https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/cognitive-hacking.