Rising Geoeconomics: Analyzing the Arctic and Eastern Mediterranean Regions in the Context of Energy Resources

Abstract

Inter-state power relations were shaped by different dynamics witnessed a considerable change after the Cold War process of which military instruments were on the agenda. Notably, exploration of energy resources and transportation of the resources in question via significant routes on optimum level has been one of the underlying factors determining the impulse capacity of states. Thus, besides making reference to geopolitics so as to analyze state behaviors, it probably could be referred to a prevailing geoeconomic process affecting international relations that prioritizes economic factors and utilize them as power instruments, recently. In this paper, it is indicated that just after the exploration of hydrocarbons, geoeconomic perspective has been efficient along with geopolitics in the Arctic and Eastern Mediterranean. Within the paper, document analysis as a method scrutinizing national strategy documents of the Arctic states and assessment on energy potential pertaining to the region besides documents on energy potential of the Eastern Mediterranean and bilateral agreements has been utilized. In the light of geoeconomic perspective it is asserted that owing to economic opportunities existing in both regions a cooperative process which mutual gains/interests are prioritized among actors could be referred besides hard competition caused by power politics. In this context, right along with confrontation and conflict among states, it is argued that there may be cooperation as well. Consequently, although the impact of geopolitical competition among the actors is undeniable, the geoeconomic approach which includes the possibility of interstate cooperation, is also claimed to be effective. 

Keywords

• Geopolitics, Arctic, Eastern Mediterranean, Energy, Geoeconomics

Jeoekonominin Yükselişi: Enerji Kaynakları Bağlamında Arktika ve Doğu Akdeniz Bölgelerinin Analizi

Abstract

Soğuk Savaş yıllarında daha çok askeri araçlarla gündeme gelen devletlerarası güç ilişkileri söz konusu dönem sonrası ciddi bir dönüşüme uğramıştır. Özellikle enerji kaynaklarının keşfedilmesi ve bu kaynakların belirlenen rotalarla optimum düzeyde taşınması, günümüzde devletlerin etki kapasitesini belirleyen faktörlerin başında gelmektedir. Dolayısıyla devletler ile ilgili analizlerde klasik anlamda başvurulan jeopolitik yaklaşımların aksine son yıllarda ekonomik faktörlerin öncelikli olarak değerlendirildiği, bu bağlamda bir güç unsuru olarak ekonomik araçların kullanıldığı jeoekonominin hâkim olduğu bir dönemden bahsetmek mümkündür. Doküman analizi yönteminin kullanıldığı bu çalışmada, Arktik ve Doğu Akdeniz bölgelerinde enerji kaynaklarının keşfedilmesiyle birlikte jeopolitikten jeoekonomiye doğru bir dönüşümün yaşandığına değinilmektedir. Bu bağlamda söz konusu bölgeler ile ilgili klasik anlamda rekabet yüklü jeopolitik içerikli değerlendirmeler yerine, devletlerarası işbirliği olanağının yer aldığı jeoekonomik yaklaşımın etkili olduğu iddia edilmektedir.

Keywords

• Jeopolitik
• Arktik
• Doğu Akdeniz
• jeoekonomi
• enerji

References

1. Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. (2004). Impacts of a warming Arctic: ACIA overview report. Cambridge University Press. Arctic Monitoring & Assessment Programme web adresinden erişildi: https://www.amap.no/documents/doc/impacts-of-a-warming-arctic-2004/786
2. Armaoğlu, F. (1983, 17-19 Aralık). Kıbrıs: Akdeniz’in en önemli geçidi. Tercüman Gazetesi.
3. Ataman, M. (2019, December 12). Turkey emerges as a real naval power. Daily Sabah, https://www.dailysabah.com/columns/ataman-muhittin/2019/12/12/turkey-emerges-as-a-real-naval-power adresinden erişildi.
4. Atay, S. Ö. (2016). Klasik jeopolitik yaklaşımlar ve eleştirel jeopolitik söylem. Aksaray Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(2), 144-155.
5. Barton, J. R. (1999). Flags of convenience: Geoeconomics and regulatory minimisation. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 90(2), 142–155.
6. Baru, S. (2012). Geo-economics and strategy. Survival, 54(3), 47–58.
7. BBC News Türkçe. (2019, Kasım 11). AB: Doğu akdeniz sondaj çalışmaları nedeniyle Türkiye’ye yaptırımların çerçevesi belirlendi. https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler-dunya-50378376 adresinden erişildi.
8. BBC News Türkçe. (2019, Aralık 10). Doğu Akdeniz: Türkiye-Libya anlaşması bölgede dengeleri nasıl etkiler? https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler-dunya-50682215 adresinden erişildi.

9. Berbrick, W. A. (2015). Strengthening US Arctic Policy through US-Russia Maritime Cooperation. In L. C. Jensen & G. Honneland (Eds.), Handbook of the politics of the Arctic (pp. 26-50). Edward Elgar Publishing.
10. Blackwill, R. D., & Harris, J. M. (2016). War by other means: Geoeconomics and statecraft. Harvard University Press.
11. Borgerson, S. G. (2008). Arctic meltdown: The economic and security implications of global warming. Foreign Affairs, 87(2). https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/arctic-antarctic/2008-03-02/arctic-meltdown adresinden erişildi.
12. Borgerson, S. G. (2013). The coming Arctic boom as the ice melts, the region heats up. Foreign Affairs, 92(4). https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/global-commons/2013-06-11/coming-arctic-boom adresinden erişildi.
13. Canada’s Arctic and Northern Policy Framework. (2019). Government of Canada. https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1560523306861/1560523330587#s6 adresinden erişildi.
14. Cowen, D., & Smith, N. (2009). After geopolitics? From the geopolitical social to geoeconomics. Antipode, 41(1), 22-48.
15. Davutoğlu, A. (2009). Stratejik derinlik: Türkiye’nin uluslararası konumu (36. Baskı). İstanbul: Küre Yayınları.
16. Demir, A. F. (1998). Jeopolitiğe günümüzden bir bakış. F. Sönmezoğlu (Ed.), Uluslararası politikada yeni alanlar ve yeni bakışlar içinde (ss. 287-306). İstanbul: Der Yayınları. Diner, D. (1999). Knowledge of expansion on the geopolitics of Karl Haushofer. Geopolitics, 4(3), 161-188
17. Duman, S. (2019). Doğu Akdeniz’de emperyal girişimler ve Türkiye. Karadeniz Araştırmaları, 16(62), 213-230.
18. Erşen, E. (2010). Jeopolitik ve uluslararası ilişkiler. Küresel Çalışmalar. https://kureselcalismalar.com/jeopolitik-ve-uluslararasi-iliskiler/ adresinden erişildi.
19. Exner-Pirot, H. (2012). Defence diplomacy in the Arctic: The search and rescue agreement as a confidence builder. Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 18(2), 195-207.
20. Furuichi, M., & Otsuka, N. (2012). Effects of the Arctic Sea routes (NSR and NWP), navigability on port industry. The International Association of Ports & Harbors, www.iaph.wordlports.org adresinden erişildi.
21. Gorbachev, M. S. (1987). The speech in Murmansk at the ceremonial meeting on the occasion of the presentation of the order of Lenin and the gold star medal to the city of Murmansk. Novosti Press Agency, 23-31.
22. Gözügüzelli, E. (2018). Doğu Akdeniz’de gelişmeler ve Türkiye’ye etkileri. Bilgesam. http://www.bilgesam.org/incele/8873/-dogu-akdeniz-de-gelismeler-ve-turkiye-ye-etkileri/#.XiIDchMza9Y adresinden erişildi.
23. Grosse, T. G. (2014). Geoeconomic relations between the EU and China: The lessons from the EU weapon embargo and from Galileo. Geopolitics, 19(1), 40–65.
24. Güneş, M., & Arslan, T. (2018). Enerji bağımlılığında Avrupa Birliği, Rusya, Türkiye üçgeni ve Doğu Akdeniz alanı. Uluslararası Beşeri Bilimler ve Eğitim Dergisi, 4(7), 32-60.
25. Gürel, A., Mullen, F., & Tzimitras, H. (2013). The Cyprus hydrocarbons issue: Context, positions and future scenarios. PCC Report, Peace Research Institute, Oslo.
26. Haushofer, K. (1998). Why geopolitik? In Gearoid O. Tuathail, S. Dalby & P. Routledge (Eds.), Geopolitics reader (pp. 33-35). London and New York: Routledge Publishing.
27. Heininen, L. (2010). Globalization and Security in the Circumpolar North. In L. Heininen & C. Southcott (Eds.), Globalization and the circumpolar north (pp. 221-264). Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press.
28. Holdar, S. (1992). The ideal state and the power of geography, the life-work of Rudolf Kjellen. Political Geography, 11(3), 307-323.
29. Holmes, S. (2008). Ice: Emerging legal issues in Arctic sovereignty. Chicago Journal of International Law, 9(1), 323-351.
30. Hsiung, J. C. (2009). The age of geoeconomics, China’s global role, and prospects of cross-strait integration. Journal of Chinese Political Science, 14(2), 113–33.
31. Hudson, V. M., Ford, R. E., Pack, D., & Giordano, E. R. (1991). Why the third world matters, why Europe probably won’t: The geoeconomics of circumscribed engagement. Journal of Strategic Studies, 14(3), 255-298.
32. Isted, K. (2009). Sovereignty in the Arctic: An analysis of territorial disputes & environmental policy considerations. Journal of Transnational Law and Policy, 18(2), 343-375.
33. İnan, Ş. (2011). Dünya’da ve Türkiye’de jeoekonomi çalışmaları ve jeoekonomi öğretimi. Bilge Strateji, 3(4), 83-122.
34. İşcan, İ. H. (2004). Uluslararası ilişkilerde klasik jeopolitik teoriler ve çağdaş yansımaları. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 1(2), 47-79.
35. Johnson, M. (2020). Trump bugdet includes proposal for US Consulate in Greenland. The Hill. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/483634- trump-budget-includes-proposal-for-us-consulate-in-greenland adresinden erişildi.
36. Käpylä, J., & Mikkola, H. (2016). The promise of the geoeconomic Arctic: A critical Arctic. Asia Europe Journal, 14(2), 203–220.
37. Kedikli, U., & Deniz, T. (2015). Enerji kaynakları mücadelesinde Doğu Akdeniz havzası. Alternatif Politika, 7(3), 399-424.
38. Kedikli, U., & Çalağan, Ö. (2017). Enerji alanında bir rekabet sahası olarak Doğu Akdeniz’in önemi. Sosyal Bilimler Metinleri, 1, 120-138.
39. Kundnani, H. (2011). Germany as a geo-economic power. Washington Quarterly, 34(3), 31–45.
40. Kvinikadze, G. (2017). The problem of geo-economics definition. The European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 3, 49-52.
41. Leonard, M. (2015). Geopolitics vs globalization: How companies and states can become winners in the age of geo-economics. geo-economics seven challenges to globalization. World Economic Forum. Global Agenda Councils, http://www3weforum.org/docs/WEF_Geoeconomics_7_Challenges_Globalization_2015. report.pdf adresinden erişildi.
42. Luttwak, E. N. (1990). From geopolitics to geo-economics: Logic of conflict, grammar of commerce. The National Interest, 20, 17-23.
43. Mackinder, H. J. (1962). Democratic ideals and reality. New York: W. Norton and Company.
44. Mahan, A. T. (1890). The influence of sea power upon history: 1660-1783. A Ria Press Edition of Mahan’s The Influence of Sea Power Upon History. 1-17.
45. http://www.riapress.com/riapress/92x5t3bookpdfs/influence%20of%20sea%20power.pdf?-session=StoreSession:C1FF7DD4027880846FUo662E2CFA adresinden erişildi.
46. McDorman, T. L., & Schofield, C. (2015). Maritime limits and boundaries in the Arctic Ocean: Agreements and disputes. In L. C. Jensen & G. Honneland (Eds.), Handbook of the politics of the Arctic (pp. 207-226). Edward Elgar Publishing.
47. McGwin, K. (2018). Denmark, Canada agree to settle Hans Island dispute. Arctic Today. https://www.arctictoday.com/denmark-canada-agree-come- agreement-disputed-island/ adresinden erişildi.
48. Mercille, J. (2008). The radical geopolitics of US foreign policy: Geopolitical and geoeconomic logics of power. Political Geography, 27(5), 570-586.
49. Moe, A. (2013a). The future of Arctic oil and gas development. In Young O. R., Kim, J. D. & Kim, Y. H. (Eds.), The Arctic in world affairs: A North Pacific dialogue on the future of the Arctic (pp. 169-176). A Joint Publication of the Korea Maritime Institute and The East-West Center.
50. Moe, A. (2013b). Norway and Russia: Neighbours with strong interests in the Arctic. In H. Peimani (Ed.), Energy security and geopolitics in the Arctic: Challenges and opportunities in the 21st century (pp. 127-163). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
51. National Snow and Ice Data Center. (2020). Arctic sea ice news & analysis https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ adresinden erişildi.
52. Norway’s Arctic strategy: Between geopolitics and social development. (2017). Norwegian Ministeries. https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/fad46f0404e14b2a9b 551ca7359c1000/arctic-strategy.pdf adresinden erişildi.
53. O’Hara, S., & Heffernan, M. (2006). From geo-strategy to geo-economics: The ‘heartland’ and British Imperialism before and after Mackinder. Geopolitics, 11(1), 54–73.
54. O,Loughlin J., & Heske, H. (1991). From ‘geopolitique’ to ‘geopolique’: Converting a discipline for war to a discipline for peace. In Kliot, N. & Waterman, S. (Eds.), The political geography of conflict and peace (pp. 37-59). London: Belhaven Press.
55. Ostreng, W. (1999). National security and the evolving ıssues of Arctic environment and cooperation. In W. Ostreng (Ed.), National security and ınternational environmental cooperation in the Arctic –the case of the Northern Sea route (pp.21-48). Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.
56. Ostreng, W. (2013). Geopolitics and power constellations in the Arctic. In W. Ostreng, et al. (Eds.), Shipping in Arctic waters: A comparison of The Northeast, Northwest and Transpolar passages (pp. 47-82). Ocean Futures.
57. Peker, H. S., Oktay, K. Ö., & Şensoy, Y. (2019). Doğu Akdeniz’de deniz yetki alanları ve enerji kaynakları çerçevesinde Türkiye’nin enerji güvenliği. Güvenlik Bilimleri Dergisi, 8(1), 85-106.
58. Russia’s Arctic Strategy. (2013). The development strategy of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation and national security until 2020. http://www.research.kobeu.ac.jp/gsicspcrc/sympo/20160728/documents/Keynote/Russian%20Arctic%20strategy%202013.pdf adresinden erişildi.
59. Sandıklı, A. (2011). Jeopolitik ve Türkiye: Riskler ve fırsatlar. İstanbul: BİLGESAM Yayınları.
60. Sandıklı, A., Budak, T., & Ünal, B. (2013). Doğu Akdeniz’de enerji keşifleri ve Türkiye. Bilge Adamlar Kurulu Raporu, Bilge Adamlar Stratejik Araştırmalar Merkezi, (59), İstanbul.
61. Scholvin, S., & Wigell, M. (2018). Power politics by economic means: Geoeconomics as an analytical approach and foreign policy practice. Comparative Study, 37(1), 73-84.
62. Scott, D. (2008). The great power ‘great game’ between India and China: ‘The logic of geography.’ Geopolitics, 13(1), 1–26.
63. Sevim, C. (2012). Küresel enerji jeopolitiği ve enerji güvenliği. Journal of Yasar University, 26(7), 4378-4391.
64. Sönmezoğlu, F. (2005). Uluslararası politika ve dış politika analizi (4. Baskı). İstanbul: Filiz Kitabevi.
65. Spykman, N. J. (1944). The geography of the peace. New York: Harcourt Brace and Company..
66. Staalesen, A. (2020). Murmansk gains status as special economic zone. The Barents Observer. https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/industry-and-energy/2020/05/murmansk-gains-status-special-economic-zone#.XsKOshz3P0h.twitter adresinden erişildi.
67. Taban, M. H. (2013). Klasik ve eleştirel jeopolitiğin karşılaştırılması ve ‘‘stratejik derinliğin’’ bu bağlamda incelenmesi. Kastamonu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(1), 21-31.
68. Tagliapietra, S. (2017). Energy: A shaping factor for regional stability in the Eastern Mediterranean?. European Parliament. Directorate-General for External Policies, Policy Department. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/578044/EXPO_STU(2017)578044_EN.pdf adresinden erişildi.
69. Tarakçı, N. (2013). Devlet adamlığı bilimi. İstanbul: Tasam Yayınları.
70. Tezkan, Y., & Taşar, M. (2002). Dünden bugüne jeopolitik. İstanbul: Ülke Kitapları.
71. The Danish Government: Foreign and Security Policy Strategy 2019-2020. (2018). http://um.dk/en/news/NewsDisplayPage/?newsID=01FC577B-6BF2-4FD7-8572- 5AF0534CF599 adresinden erişildi.
72. The national strategy for the Arctic Region. (2013). https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/nat_arctic_strategy.pdf adresinden erişildi.
73. Trenin, D. (2014). Five issues at stake in the Arctic. Carnegie Moscow Center.
74. Tuathail, G. O. (1996). Critical geopolitics: The politics of writing global space. London: Routledge Publishing
75. Tuathail, G. O., & Dalby, S. (2002). Rethinking of geopolitics. London: Routledge Publishing
76. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Dışişleri Bakanlığı Basın Açıklaması. (2011). http://www.mfa.gov.tr/no_-216_-21-eylul-2011-turkiye-_-kktc-kita-sahanligi-sinirlandirma-anlasmasi-imzalanmasina-iliskin-disisleri-bakanligi-basin-ac_.tr.mfa adresinden erişildi.
77. United States Energy Information Administration. (2013). Overview of oil and natural gas in the Eastern Mediterranean Region.
78. https://www.eia.gov/international/analysis/regions-of-interest/Eastern_Mediterranean adresinden erişildi.
79. United States Energy Information Administration. (2017). World oil transport chokepoints.
80. https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/analysis_includes/special_topics/World_Oil_Transit_Chokepoints/wotc.pdf adresinden erişildi.
81. United States Geological Survey. (2008). Circum-Arctic resource appraisal. https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3049/fs2008-3049.pdf adresinden erişildi.
82. United States Geological Survey. (2010). Assessment of undiscovered oil and gas resources of the Levant/Nile Delta Basin Province, Eastern Mediterranean. https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2010/3027/pdf/FS10-3027.pdf ve https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2010/3014/pdf/FS10-3014.pdf adresinden erişildi.
83. Yılmaz, E. (2018). Doğu Akdeniz’de enerji çıkmazı. Seta Perspektif. https://www.setav.org/perspektif-dogu-akdenizde-enerji-cikmazi/ adresinden erişildi.
84. Young, O. R. (1992). Arctic politics: Conflict and cooperation in the circumpolar North. Dartmouth College: University Press of New England.