MILITARY NATIONAL SECURITY SERVICE Issue 1. 2020. NATIONAL SECURITY REVIEW BUDAPEST Scientific Periodical of the Military National Security Service Responsible Publisher: Lt. Gen. János Béres, PhD Director General Chairman of the Scientific Board Editorial Board Chairman: Lt. Gen. János Béres, PhD Members: Col. Tamás Kenedli, PhD Secretary of the Scientific Board Col. Sándor Magyar, PhD Col. Károly Kassai PhD Col. Zoltán Árpád Lt. Col. Csaba Vida, PhD Lt. Col. János Fürjes Norbert, PhD Lt. Col. Béla Puskás, PhD Col. István Talián Responsible editor: Col. István Talián Make-up editor: Beatrix Szabó Language editor: Col. Mihály Szabó Postal Address: Katonai Nemzetbiztonsági Szolgálat Tudományos Tanácsa 1021 Budapest, Budakeszi út 99-101. 1525 Budapest, Pf. 74. E-mail: [email protected] Webpage: http://www.knbsz.gov.hu TABLE OF CONTENTS THEORY OF NATIONAL SECURITY ZSOLT CSUTAK NORTH ATLANTIC SECURITY COOPERATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY: LOST IN TRANSITION? ........... .………………...5 GEOPOLITICS TIBOR JÁNOS BARABÁS ADDITIONAL NOTES ON ROMANIAN POLITICAL CULTURE AND ITS HUNGARIAN ASPECTS ............................................................ 18 ZSOLT KERÉKGYÁRTÓ EVOLUTION OF THE SECURITY SITUATION IN MALI, BASED ON EXPERIENCES OF THE EUTM MALI HUNGARIAN MILITARY INSTRUCTORS ............................................. 29 BERK CAN KOZAN REMEMBERING THE ETHNIC TERROR: ASALA ............................... 42 ESMERALDA KADËNA ALBANIA: EARTHQUAKE SHOCK OF THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2019........................................................................ 54 ATTILA VIRÁG BIG PICTURE BEFORE THE PANDEMIC: SUPPLY SECURITY STRATEGIES IN THE EUROPEAN NATURAL GAS SECTOR ........... 73 PÉTER FÁBIÁN PhD CHANGES IN THE INTERPRETATIVE FRAMEWORKS OF TERRORIST ACTIVITIES .......................................................................... 87 TIBOR SZILVÁGYI, PhD SERBIA’S MILITARY NEUTRALITY AND WHAT IS BEHIND IT ... 100 FAISAL WARIKAT SURVIVAL OF TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS .................................. 129 ABDOUSS MOHAMED NATIONAL SECURITY OF MOROCCO TOWARDS MIGRATION: A WEAK GOVERNANCE OF A TRANSIT DESTINATION PAR EXCELLENCE ............................................................................................. 148 INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION SECURITY ATTILA MÁTÉ KOVÁCS STRANGER THINGS – THREATS AND OPPORTUNITIES RELATED TO THE INTERNET OF THINGS ........................................ 165 AUTHORS OF THIS ISSUE .....................................................................178 EDITORS OF THIS ISSUE ......................................................................179 CONDITIONS OF PUBLICATIONS .......................................................180 4 THEORY OF NATIONAL SECURITY ZSOLT CSUTAK NORTH ATLANTIC SECURITY COOPERATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY: LOST IN TRANSITION?1 Abstract The United States and the North Atlantic security cooperation have arrived at a crossroads concerning their future orientation and strategies to be adopted in the context of the continuing global transformation of the 21st century. This study aims to focus on the strategic shifts as well as on the geopolitical and other challenges the US and its NATO Allies are facing, particularly in Europe. Palpable domestic clashes of ideas and interests within the Alliance foster political dissonance and challenge unified power projection capabilities, especially when facing a revisionist expansionist Russia, a rising China and a fermenting Middle East in the neighborhood. The new asymmetric threats and challenges coming from the cyber domain, the advancement of artificial intelligence or even the global issues of climate change supplement the framework of classic geopolitical security and foreign political concerns. The US and its more vulnerable European allies seem to be in a phase of transition, in terms of security and their global position among other great power blocs. Among the controversially optimistic proclamations, there are also several skeptical and more realistic viewpoints regarding the present and future of the most successful and efficient security cooperation in history. Keywords: NATO, EU, great power politics, security strategies, global challenges, clash of ideas and geography. I. Old new rifts and challenges in the transatlantic region Throughout 2019, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) celebrated its 70th anniversary, but serious inner disputes and dark clouds overshadowed the festive mood of the Heads of State meetings of the North Atlantic Council. While taking a distant and retrospective glimpse into the rather glorious past of the Alliance, many pundits and decision-makers underscored the undeniable fact that NATO has been the most successful and efficient military alliance and security cooperation arrangement in modern human history. As the Washington-based American think- tank, the Brookings Institution’s research survey also highlighted, most of the security alliances in the history of the last half millennium lasted for less than 15 years2. 1 This paper has been elaborated with the support of ÚNKP-19-3-1/ NKE-72 program. 2 Emmanuel ASMAH – Laurence CHANDY – Daniel KAUFMANN – Johannes F. LINN – John MUTENYO – Veronika PENCIAKOVA: Around the Halls: The U.N.’s Millennium Developent Goals; Brookings 2010 https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up- front/2010/09/16/around-the-halls-the-u-n-s-millennium-development-goals/ (downloaded 12 November 2019) 5 Nevertheless, as a respected British military analyst professor Michael Clarke put it, aptly ironically darkening the festive atmosphere, the alliance used to be the strongest, when it had only half as many member states as today, in the beginning of the Cold War era.3 Theoretically speaking, it is a commonly shared security perception that the bipolar world of the Cold War with two almost equivalent global players (US-NATO v. Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact) proved to be more stable and balanced in the international arena, than the current competing global (USA, China, Russia, UK) and regional powers (Turkey, Iran, Israel, India, Brazil). Today, there are many more players with quite diverse power projection capabilities and heterogeneous webs of interests. Consequently, there are considerably more grounds for clashes and conflicts of all kinds, and penetration potentials among the actors on the world stage. 4 In such a patchwork of diversified global political factors in a challenging strategic environment, NATO and its members must find a way to represent and protect their interests both individually (nationally) and organizationally (internationally) alike. The Alliance, stretching from Alaska through the central Balkan peninsula to the Turkish-Iranian border in the Middle East, covers a considerable landmass and maritime area in the Northern hemisphere, supervising the safety and security of its 29 member states, with almost 800 million inhabitants. With the 30th potential member state of North Macedonia awaiting full accession to the Alliance, the geopolitical core of NATO has gradually shifted from the initial North Atlantic area towards the East European region, and even closer to the war-torn Middle East. Seemingly paradoxically in terms of strategic advantage and military might, the Alliance has become weaker and more tormented with diverse heterogeneous interests, stemming from the domestic and regional political culture of its new member states. Would it seem feasible and realistic that some small, globally insignificant countries could drag great powers and NATO into conflicts with potential escalation, into a major war? In the multi-polar world of the 21st century, many realistic experts do not exclude this scenario unfolding in the future at all, from the Estonian borderland, through the ever-fermenting Balkan region, to the more strategic Eastern Mediterranean, and Middle Eastern region.5 As the experts of the latest NATO Strategic Concept of 2010 remarked wittily, “past achievements and great accomplishments of the Alliance provide no guarantee for the future,” especially in such a transformed and changing global theater.6 In the following pages I shall provide a brief though tentatively comprehensive analysis of the recent strategic and political changes perceptible within the so-called Western world that are primarily related to the complex power triangle of NATO, European Union and the only global superpower, the United States. Considering the clash between the various approaches and principles of major schools of international 3 Marcus JONATHAN: Troubled NATO at 70; BBC report: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50604857 (dwnloaded 10 January 2020) 4 MEARSHEIMER, J.J.: The tragedy of great power politics. New York: Norton, 2001. pp. 138-141. 5 ALLEN, John R. et alia: NATO at 70: more than a military alliance. Brookings Institution podcast, 2019. https://www.brookings.edu/podcast-episode/nato-at-70-more-than-a- military-alliance/ (downloaded 12 November 2019); O’HANLON, Michael: The Senkaku Paradox, Brookings Institution Press, 2019. 6 NATO: NATO 2020: Assured security; Dynamic engagement. Lisbon-Bruxelles, 2010. p. 5. 6 relations and security studies (from the offensive and defensive realist schools and classic geo-strategists, through liberal institutionalists and European constructivists, to American neoconservatives, etc.), I will be focusing on the primary geostrategic concepts and imminent interests of the parties involved, as well as on their special spheres of interest, concerning their controversial relationships with neighboring rival great