From Mythos to Modernity: Türkiye’s Arctic Odyssey as a Framework for Foreign Policy Changes in Arctic

The Arctic stands as a relatively new subject within the realm of International Relations. The region lacks a singularly precise definition due to variations in its southern boundary. Because of its exposure to climate change and environmental factors, the region does not adhere to a single characterization. Scientists define the Arctic as "the region above the Arctic Circle, an imaginary line that circles the globe at approximately 66° 34' N." (Arctic Centre,2024) in terms solar of radiation. Geographically, it encompasses six countries: Canada, Denmark (Greenland), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Russia, and the US (Alaska). However, beyond this scientific definition and the concept of "imaginary lines and circles", the Arctic does not have a geopolitical characterization, which differs in the interpretation of the region by policy- makers, states, and actors. The term "Arctic" used to describe the region actually comes from Greek; the word "Arktos" in Greek actually means bear, but they used this word to describe the overseas lands beyond the constellation of the Great Bear (Grant, 2010:5).

Throughout the Cold War, the Arctic was predominantly associated with military concerns. It was considered a key strategic zone for nuclear deterrence, where both the United States and the Soviet Union positioned submarines and established early warning systems to keep tabs on one another. The security approach of this time reflected a zero-sum logic, where advancements by one power were seen as setbacks for the other.

With the end of the Cold War, the Arctic security process underwent a complete transformation. Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev’s 1987 Murmansk Speech outlined a new course focused on cooperation and reducing regional military tensions. He urged the establishment of the Arctic as a “zone of peace” and emphasized the importance of prioritizing environmental protection, scientific research, and economic cooperation (Purver, 1988, p. 148).

This speech served as a catalyst for a paradigm shift in Arctic security away from militaristic competition and toward an approach based on international partnership. But overall, processes in the Arctic did not completely shift to peaceful methods.

Photo by Annie Spratt on Unsplash

In the post-Murmansk period, territorial disputes began to be resolved through scientific and legal frameworks rather than military steps (Jacobsen and Strandsbjerg, 2017, p. 21). This change was effective in transforming the Arctic from a conflict zone to a cooperation zone. The reimagining of the Arctic as a space of peaceful cooperation rather than conflict marked a significant shift from the Cold War mindset (Heininen, 2018, p. 123). It is important to remember that Gorbachev’s speech was not initially met with skepticism by Western powers (Hønneland, 2017), and its long-term impact is evident in the post-Cold War era of cooperative institutions such as the Arctic Council, which helped reduce security tensions and create a spirit of cooperation in the region.

Following these modifications and developments, the presence of Non-Arctic States in the Arctic became more prominent, overshadowing the role of regional actors. The Arctic Council was formally established in 1996, during which discussions centered on the collaboration among regional states. Additionally, entities and nations that were not geographically proximate to the region, yet maintained partnerships with regional states, were also incorporated into the dialogue.

The initial inclusion of non-regional or non-arctic actors occurred in 1998, comprising Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Poland. After that France in 2000 and Spain joined in 2006, followed by a significant expansion in 2013 that brought in China, South Korea, India, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and most recently, Switzerland. Meanwhile, Türkiye and the European Union have continued to maintain observer status since 2015.

The conventional boundaries of the Arctic are increasingly being redefined, evolving into a "globalized" area where its geopolitical and economic significance reaches beyond geographical confines, impacting regions such as the Mediterranean and Asia-Pacific.

This transformation of the Arctic's conceptual frontiers is largely fueled by climate change, competition for resources, and the emergence of new maritime routes, including the Northern Sea Route (NSR), which links Arctic waters to international trade networks (Exner-Pirot, 2020).

Between Mythos and Modernity: The Evolution of Türkiye’s Arctic Discourse and Institutionalization of Polar Research (1923–2023)

After a simple and conceptual introduction to the Arctic process, let's return to our main topic, Türkiye. What are Türkiye's objectives in the Arctic process? Have you considered Türkiye's involvement in this context?

Türkiye is a relatively new participant in the Arctic process, having only recently entered this arena. However, Türkiye's processes of following and participating in the Arctic Process date back to 1923, when the Republic was first established. The Svalbard Agreement was signed by the Western Allied Powers in 1920. The Ottoman Empire, which was in the process of de facto disintegration at that time, was not invited to the Svalbard Agreement and the economic potential of the period, the coal mining process. In addition, during the period we call the Arctic Exploration Age, the Ottoman Empire did not have any concrete interest in the Arctic region, research efforts, and the capacity to allocate resources. (Roberts, 2020).

Although Svalbard entered into force in 1925, the young republic and its representatives were not invited to this agreement. The young republic had "more important" issues to address for its time, which is understandable. However, during the Cold War, Türkiye did not make any attempt to join Svalbard. We cannot expect Türkiye to focus on Arctic policies during this period because we are talking about a geography that is stuck between two blocs and sees the disadvantages of this. (Oran, 2010).

With the beginning of Türkiye's NATO membership, Arctic policies also became compatible with security policies around the security of NATO countries.

In the post-Cold War policies, Türkiye did not take much part in the Arctic process. Because the USA had lost interest in the region and turned to the Middle East. This was a higher priority for Türkiye than its Arctic policies at the time. However, after 2014, Türkiye became fully involved in the Arctic Process and began to establish institutes for scientific research. Of course, there were scientists working in the Arctic in Türkiye, but after 2014, these processes became institutionalized (Yavaşoğlu, 2021:14). First The Polar Research Center (PolReC) within Istanbul Technical University (ITU) was established in 2014; and the following years in 2017, PolRec was started running its polar programs under the responsibility of the Ministry of Industry and Technology. In 2019, TUBITAK Marmara Research Center (MAM) Polar Research Institute (KARE) was established, and the polar coordination task was transferred from ITU PolReC to KARE. Conceptually, Türkiye's Arctic process and its scientific contributions have begun to be examined.

Photo by Naja Bertolt Jensen on Unsplash

Unlike other actors that actively seek to establish their conceptual stance, Türkiye has not made significant efforts to assert its position through state mechanisms. Instead, Türkiye acknowledges its presence in the region. How does it achieve this?

A notable aspect of Türkiye is its strategic geographical location. Positioned centrally among the lands of the Old World, Türkiye is nearly equidistant from both the Equator and the North Pole (Limon,2021).

The Mediterranean Sea, a branch of the Atlantic Ocean, extends deeply into this region, with Türkiye bordered by water on three sides: the Mediterranean, Aegean, and Black Seas (Darkot, 1972: 3–4). In terms of topography, Türkiye is classified as a high-altitude nation, with an average elevation of 1,130 meters, which is 3.5 times greater than the average altitude of Europe (330 meters) and even surpasses that of Asia (1,050 meters) (Darkot, 1972: 6). Unlike some non-Arctic countries that label themselves as “near-Arctic states,” such as China (Government of China, 2018), or “vertical Arctic nations,” like Switzerland (Arctic Council, 2017), Türkiye does not adopt this approach. Its elevation relative to Europe and Asia positions Türkiye as a “third pole,” akin to the Himalayas or the Alps (Arctic Council, 2020; Tonami, 2016: 109–110), although such a classification may not be necessary. Türkiye is compelled to engage with the polar regions to tackle its climate challenges. Furthermore, its geographical position, which facilitates migration routes from south to north and east to west, necessitates Türkiye's active involvement with both its immediate neighbors (the Middle East, Mediterranean, etc.) and more distant partners (the Arctic, EU, etc.).

So, what is the connection between Türkiye's Arctic initiative and the Iliad and the Odyssey?

For those familiar with the Iliad and the Odyssey, it is evident that the Iliad focuses on the Trojan War, particularly concerning the security of the Dardanelles and the Aegean Sea, while the Odyssey narrates a journey filled with adventures that leads to the discovery of new territories. While the Iliad Epic deals with the process in a broader sense, with the Odysseus Epic we can treat Türkiye as the main actor and the main narrator in more detailed processes.

The Iliad

The epic of the Iliad narrates the events of the Trojan War, a struggle between civilizations (the Greeks and the Trojans) driven by the pursuit of power, honor, and resources. The themes of Achilles' wrath and Hector's sacrifice encapsulate the broader aspirations of humanity.

How does this historical narrative relate to the Arctic? Currently, a "very cold war" is unfolding in the Arctic, involving Russia, the United States, Canada, China, and European Union nations, all vying for energy resources and trade routes. This situation mirrors the rivalry depicted in the Iliad.

Rather than adopting aggressive tactics, Türkiye is employing a strategy reminiscent of Odysseus. For instance, Türkiye's Blue Homeland doctrine and its maritime capabilities in the Arctic could serve as an "unexpected" maneuver akin to a Trojan horse.

Although Türkiye is a member of NATO, it is complicating the dynamics of alliances similar to those in the Iliad by engaging in energy and military collaborations with Russia.

The fall of Troy, as depicted at the conclusion of the Iliad, illustrates the profound consequences of warfare. In a contemporary context, the Arctic Council seeks to avert a modern-day Trojan War in the Arctic by promoting "peaceful cooperation." Historically, the Arctic was regarded as a region of heightened security concerns until the end of the Cold War. Türkiye has the potential to act as a mediator in this scenario, drawing on its experience from past international disputes.Consequently, this initiative could serve as a means for Türkiye to reinforce its bid for full membership in the Arctic Council.

Türkiye, as an observer member of the Arctic Council, is displaying a Hector-like advocacy (Türkiye’s National Polar Science Workshop in 2023 is reminiscent of Hector’s efforts to protect the people of Troy.). It works for the rights of indigenous peoples in the region and for sustainable development. And it supports this through ethno-identity (the issue of Siberian peoples being of Turkish descent).

What we see in the Iliad reminds us of the destructiveness of the conflict process and the dimension of the conflict that the Arctic process is progressing towards.

However, one point we understand from the Iliad is that dialogue and diplomacy can solve the events. Türkiye wants to be in the Arctic in this respect. Just like the mediation processes it has been involved in in the recent past (Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Somalia, Sudan), it argues that it should be an active mediator actor in the region in the Arctic process.

The Odyssey

The epic of Odyssey basically tells the story of Odysseus' 10-year journey and is based on sailing to unknown seas, encountering new cultures, and challenging the mysteries of nature. In this adventure, Odysseus encounters many dangers. It narrates the challenges, trials, and adventures encountered by Odysseus as he attempts to return to his homeland of Ithaca following the Trojan War. This odyssey spanned a decade, and the epic serves as a powerful representation of human resolve, intellect, and the battle against otherworldly forces.

Photo by The New York Public Library on Unsplash

The Arctic is still seen as a “last frontier” for humanity. The new sea routes that emerged with the melting of the glaciers (the Northern Sea Route) can be compared to the dangerous straits that Odysseus passed through. The distance between Ithaca and Troy is not an insurmountable distance or a difficult path in today's world. However, while Odysseus was traveling this path, he encountered Cyclops, Sirens, the Underworld, and many storms and suffering. For this reason, his journey lasted up to ten years.

Türkiye’s being an observer member of the Arctic Council since 2015, and the work of the TÜBİTAK MAM Polar Research Institute reflect Odysseus’ spirit of discovery. For example, the 4th National Polar Sciences Workshop organized by Türkiye in 2023 represents the scientific leg of this journey. Odysseus’ encounter with tempting dangers such as the Lotophages (lotus eaters) can be likened to the ethical dilemmas created by energy resources (oil, natural gas) and economic interests in the Arctic. This can be likened to the process in which Türkiye is not there “only for energy resources” and focuses on scientific research and cultural ties. In the epic, those who eat the Lotus; destroy the desire of Odysseus and his crew to return and make them forget their own selves. This is actually a situation experienced by some countries (China, Russia) that are only in the Arctic for energy resources.

Here, Türkiye is not only in at this point for energy resources and underground resources. Instead of being completely interested in this deceptive beauty as Odysseus did in the epic, it puts forward the goals it wants to achieve for its own self. Türkiye does this by intensifying its scientific research.

The other most interesting point of Odysseus in the epic is the Trojan Horse, which we know from the Trojan War. The Trojan Horse is actually a method of accepting defeat and supposedly establishing peace. But in the end, the Trojan Horse is also the product of a gain.

Türkiye symbolically reinforced its presence in the polar regions by establishing a temporary scientific base in Antarctica in 2023. This move was a seemingly innocent (scientific) but strategic step, like Odysseus' "gift horse". The name of this base in the Arctic, Dismal Island ("Dismal" = Gloomy), evokes the gloomy atmosphere of Odysseus's Lotofaglar Island. Scientific studies may be a "Trojan Horse" that conceals Türkiye's "well-intentioned" image in the region. Although Odysseus' Trojan Horse process in the epic led to the Trojan War, in the later saga this trick was cursed and punished by Poseidon. At this stage, the scientific emphasis we have made for Türkiye partially represents that Türkiye should also express its strategic desires for the region, albeit to a lesser extent. Otherwise, Türkiye may become one of the states that other members will call a scapegoat in the Arctic process.

In the epic, the land of the Phaeacians is Odysseus' last stop. While wounded, Odysseus takes refuge here and learns about seafaring and ships from the Phaeacians. The Phaeacians help Odysseus go to Ithaca, but Odysseus, who is under the wrath of Poseidon, turns the Phaeacians' ships into stone and incurs divine wrath.

Türkiye offers scientific collaborations in the Arctic (e.g. glacier research with Norway or Finland), logistics projects (access to the Northern Sea Route), and diplomatic support. The Scientific Cooperation Agreement in the Arctic, which Türkiye signed with the Arctic states in 2021, can be likened to the Phaeacians giving their ship to Odysseus. Like the Phaeacians, Türkiye is also drawing the reaction of the "great powers" (Russia, the US, China) with these collaborations. And this metaphorizes the political difficulties in Türkiye's participation in the Arctic Council.

Poseidon turning the Phaeacians' ship into stone is a harsh response of nature to human intervention. The melting of the glaciers threatens the ecosystem in the Arctic. If Türkiye's energy projects (e.g. dependence on Russian gas) accelerate this process, they may be subject to "Poseidon's wrath." Here, Poseidon can also be used to represent the great powers in the Arctic. Türkiye is trying to follow a balanced policy as an observer in the Arctic Council. However, taking sides in the Western-Russian tensions could lead to unexpected sanctions, such as the petrification of the Phaeacians' ship. Türkiye's tensions with the US over the purchase of the S-400s could put Western-backed projects in the Arctic at risk.

The Phaeacians' ship is as fragile as the glaciers in the Arctic. Türkiye can save itself from the wrath of Poseidon by equipping this ship with 'green technology'.

As conclusion, Türkiye's remarkable nearly decade-long journey has produced numerous studies that can be interpreted as metaphors and developed into theoretical concepts. It is important to recognize that Türkiye possesses greater awareness and research regarding the Arctic compared to many non-Arctic States inside of the Arctic Council, which is a significant factor that distinguishes it in the context of full membership.

Bibliography

1- Arctic Centre. (2024). Definition of the Arctic. https://www.arcticcentre.org/EN/arcticregion

2- Arctic Council. (2017). Observer States https://arctic-council.org/about/observers/

3- Arctic Council. (2020). Geopolitical classifications in the Arctic. https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/home

4- Darkot, B. (1972). Türkiye Coğrafyası [Geography of Türkiye]. İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları.

5- Exner-Pirot, H. (2020). The Globalization of the Arctic: Climate Change and Geopolitical Shifts. Arctic Yearbook.

6- Government of China. (2018). China’s Arctic Policy.

7- Grant, S. D. (2010). Polar Imperatives: Reflections on the Origins of the Arctic. University of Toronto Press.

8- Heininen, L. (2018). Arctic Geopolitics: From Cold War to Cooperation. Palgrave Macmillan.

9- Hønneland, G. (2017). Russia and the Arctic: Environmental and Security Perspectives. Routledge.

10- Jacobsen, M., & Strandsbjerg, J. (2017). Desecuritization in the Arctic: The Case of Greenland. Arctic Review on Law and Politics, 8(1), 1–24.

11- Limon, İ. (2021). Türkiye’nin Stratejik Konumu ve Arktik Politikaları [Türkiye’s Strategic Location and Arctic Policies]. TÜBİTAK Raporu.

12- Oran, B. (2010). Türk Dış Politikası: Soğuk Savaş Sonrası Dönem [Turkish Foreign Policy: Post-Cold War Era]. İletişim Yayınları.

13- Purver, R. (1988). Security and Arms Control in the Arctic. Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security.

14- Roberts, P. (2020). The Ottoman Empire and the Polar Regions. Journal of Historical Geography, 68, 45–58.

15- Tonami, A. (2016). Asian Foreign Policy in a Changing Arctic. Palgrave Macmillan.

16- Yavaşoğlu, S. (2021). Türkiye’nin Arktik Bilimsel Faaliyetleri [Türkiye’s Arctic Scientific Activities]. TÜBİTAK MAM Raporu.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein belong solely to the columnist and do not represent the official position of our think-tank. Humanotions cannot be held liable for any consequences arising from this content. Content published on Humanotions may contain links to third-party sources. Humanotions is not responsible for the content of these external links. Please refer to our Legal Notices & Policies page for legal details and our Guidelines For Republishing page for republication terms.