The yearly reports of the Global Economic Forum, that refer to the network readiness of nations or, which is the same, the level of distribution and utilization of IT (Information Technologies), show that Armenia has experienced a drastic and steady downturn in its position.

In the Global Economic Forum’s 2008-2009 IT ratings, Armenia, coming in at the 114th spot, lags well behind all its neighbors. Azerbaijan, Turkey and Georgia came in at the 60th, 61st and 88th spots respectively. At the same time, the attention paid to informational security issues grows from year to year. Such attention takes the form of various seminars and discussions to even legislative initiatives…But the paradox is that all these concurrent processes have no linkage with one another; at least not directly. In essence, the concept of “security” in Armenia has a whole different meaning. Let’s try to understand what this meaning is.

Armenia lags well behind its neighbors

It was only recently that RoA Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan accepted the fact that the IT sector in Armenia was in pretty poor shape. “We have been tardy…” This was PM Sargsyan’s evaluation of the IT sector in Armenia that he uttered during his trip to the United States, after his visit to Silicon Valley and meetings with industry representatives. But is this “tardiness”, as declared in Silicon Valley, comparable to the fact that Armenia lags so far behind its own regional neighbors; its competitors and adversaries. When matched up against the evaluation of the Global Economic Forum, the assessment of Prime Minister Sargsyan might be regarded as a compliment of sorts.

Today, one is hard pressed to believe in the rationalizations of prior years, arguing that the statistics used in the Forum’s reports are several years old, and since IT has developed rapidly in several Armenian sectors as of late, the actual rankings of the country have certainly improved. Such far-fetched assumptions have been roundly disproven when it was revealed that appraisals regarding the rates of development were exaggerated and that Armenia occupied a lower position in the new rankings. Furthermore, rather than lagging behind, Armenia’s neighbors had actually moved way ahead in the rankings.

“Information Security”: Does Armenia have anything to protect?

As to the discussions about information security, here, the talk deals with much more simple matters, i.e. “information wars”; a subject who time has long since past – the disinformation and manipulation conducted by Azerbaijani, and now also, Turkish information services, hacker attacks on Armenian government websites, etc. In other words, issues of information security are primarily linked to the Internet. While increasing the defense capabilities of Internet websites is perhaps important, it is much easier to accomplish than say drafting policy aimed at developing the Internet itself.

Thus, if we take into account the fairly low functional importance of the Internet (computer technology) in even the most important branches of the economy, in government, education and other structure, the scarcity of Armenian language content and services, in addition to other factors, leads one to conclude that there actually isn’t much out there to defend or safeguard and that all the energy exhausted on “information security” isn’t all that justified.

“Computers for All” – Who will actually benefit?

And if the program, “Computers for all”, is to be accomplished, what is first necessary is a clarification of the productivity of computers now in use – in the schools, government departments and elsewhere. What is also needed is an evaluation of what Armenian language resources and Armenian language content processing tools are available for the individual computer user. Otherwise, it isn’t hard to see that the ultimate beneficiaries of this program will not be residents of Armenia but rather the firms selling computers and local companies serving as sales middlemen.

Just as the claims heralding the bright informational future in Armenia were never assessed on an appropriate level in the past – not to mention that these claims never were the focus of public debate – today as well, there is no substantive discussion regarding Armenia’s “tardiness” in the sector and the inexcusable fact that it lags behind its neighbors. Naturally, the substitution of IT sector issues by such a superficial and narrow concept of information security has its advantages. In this guise, the subject is understandable to all; the authorities, specialists and society. The importance of the issue is above suspicion and the steps to be taken are more or less grasped.

It is already apparent that such a simplification of the situation is ripe with dangerous consequences, at the very least because much more important issues are overlooked. But such an approach has another side to it as well. What accompanies the reduction and simplification of the field of meanings, as in other cases, is the militarization of cultural and social problems, their transference to the plane of “patriotism” or “national interests”. (Let’s recount the billboards on Yerevan streets portraying various cultural figures mouthing the slogan, “My weapon is my…”)

The existence of a fully “matter of fact” enemy, as opposed to an assumed one, coupled with the veil of semi-secrecy, imparts a particular appeal of patriotic spirit to an otherwise mundane set of discussions devoted to information wars and related topics.

However, at the same time, they rule out more extensive debate; becoming a new obstacle on the road to public discussion. The experience of many other nations shows that since society has yet to become an interested participant in deliberations devoted to IT, it is premature to speak of any successes.