The Istanbul Natural Resources Summit (INRES), held on May 2 in Istanbul under the auspices of the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources and organized by Turkuvaz Media Group, featured presentations on Turkey’s energy investment plans in Africa and the Middle East, along with discussions of future projects.

On May 7, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) attended the Mass Inauguration Ceremony for Renewable Energy Investments. In his speech, he drew attention to energy outages in parts of Europe, stated that Turkey’s energy demand is expected to rise by 50 percent, and announced $80 billion in investments by 2035. He praised the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant, referenced Gabar, and promised to shorten the waiting period for energy companies while addressing the difficulties they face.

Melis Tantan, Co-Spokesperson of the Ecology and Agriculture Commission of the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party), commented on both the Istanbul Natural Resources Summit and Turkey’s broader energy policy in the context of the recent inauguration events. She noted that the Natural Resources Summit held in Istanbul served as one pillar of Turkey’s international strategic cooperation with countries in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. Tantan said, “We’ve already seen reports in the media for some time now about these international partnerships. There are frequent meetings with the United Arab Emirates, for instance, and the headlines typically read, ‘agreements signed.’ But these announcements, which are framed as diplomatic successes, are essentially energy and trade deals. While the headlines are shared, we are told nothing about the actual content of these agreements. There are talks with many countries, but we never know the details. What we do know is that the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources has been operating under a long-term plan. In the 12th Development Plan, the objective was laid out very clearly for the 2024–2028 period. They state: ‘We will make Turkey an energy hub.’ Turkey is assigning itself the role of a connector between energy producers and those who demand it.”

Tantan explained that the summit functioned in two key dimensions. It not only emphasized Turkey’s ambition to position itself as an energy hub but also highlighted planned energy investments in various other countries. She noted, “We saw that agreements, infrastructure investments, and trade partnerships were framed in such a way that nearly every country involved was portrayed as being grateful to Turkey.”

Tantan added that the idea of turning Turkey into an energy hub had already come up in relation to the so-called Development Road project. She said, “But this plan is not limited to that project alone. What Erdoğan said, and what was echoed at the summit, focused heavily on energy supply security. The message was: either we will produce the energy ourselves, or we will secure access to it from producer countries. They claim this will be done through a mutual win-win policy.”

Who actually benefits from this so-called win-win policy? Is there any gain for the people or the environment?

No, there is not. What we’re talking about here are agreements made between states and corporations. Erdoğan especially says, “There is no colonialism in our history,” but Kurdistan itself is a reality that contradicts that claim. These kinds of energy and financial agreements create mutual dependency. In fact, they pave the way for colonial practices, especially with countries whose economies are weaker than Turkey’s.

For a long time, we’ve been saying that imperialist and multinational companies have exploited the lands of Turkey and Kurdistan in the name of mining and energy. But something has changed over the past decade. We’re now seeing Turkish companies, particularly those backed by the government, starting to partner with those imperialist companies. And we’re witnessing how they are opening up new spaces for themselves in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa.

In this way, Turkey is essentially telling the world, “We are part of this race too,” in the fields of energy and mining. They speak with ambition, saying, “We are the seventh-largest country in mining, and we aim to become number one.” All the investments listed at the summit are closely tied to the root causes of Turkey’s current economic crisis, because nearly all public resources have been directed into these kinds of incentives.

You mentioned that Turkey is beginning to expand into new areas in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. How are the countries attending the summit engaging with these investment areas?

All of the countries present at the summit effectively marketed their lands. They did so through four main messages. First, they emphasized that their lands are rich in resources. Some said, “We have mineral deposits,” others said, “Our oil reserves are highly developed,” and still others highlighted that “we have large areas open for energy investments.” So the first message was about how resource-rich their territories are.

Second, countries with a heavy history of war, like Libya, Iraq, and Syria, kept repeating, “We are resolving our political issues.” Turkey has already made strategic moves in these regions and has taken sides in many of these conflicts. Syria is a well-known example. In Somalia, Turkey was praised in the media as the guarantor of peace. But in reality, Turkey’s role in that so-called peace process was linked to its forward-looking agreements and plans to search for minerals and build infrastructure in Somalia. So we can say that Turkey’s so-called peace policy in these places is actually deeply hypocritical.

Returning to how these countries negotiated: First, they said, “Our lands are rich.” Second, “Our political problems are behind us.” Third, “We are enacting legal reforms.” They declared that they are opening up their energy and mining sectors to international investment and are passing the necessary legal frameworks to ensure smooth operations. “Companies and states investing here will not face problems, you can be assured,” they said. And present at the summit were the CEOs of various energy and mining companies, listening closely to these statements. The fourth message was this: “We prioritize foreign investors. Come invest in our country and help us grow.”

Erdoğan claims, “There is no colonialism in our history,” yet these countries are, in reality, offering their territories to a colonial mindset. They are effectively saying, “Let the investment come in and lift us up, even if it turns us into a state colony.” And this logic is not limited to non-Western countries; some European countries also fall into this framework. For instance, there was a recent tender in Hungary for oil exploration. The Turkish Petroleum Corporation (TPAO) won the bid and will soon begin drilling at two sites in Hungary.

In Niger, mining investments are underway, these are confirmed deals. What we previously saw reported under vague headlines like “strategic international partnerships formed, agreements signed” are now being revealed in more concrete detail. Major project planning has already taken place in many of these countries.

One of the most significant cases is Iraq. Investment there is also focused on oil. Iraq has stated openly, “We will increase crude oil production.” Recently, Veysel Eroğlu was appointed as the official responsible for matters related to Iraq. You might remember Veysel Eroğlu as the former Minister of Environment. Given that mining and renewable energy investments are on the table in Iraq, it wouldn’t be wrong to assume that they intend to utilize his prior experience in these fields.

You also mentioned Syria. What kind of activities are taking place there?

After the destruction caused by the war, Turkish construction companies took a direct role in the reconstruction process in Syria. There is also an electricity project funded by the World Bank, with Jordan and two other parties involved. Turkey is among the countries working on rebuilding Syria’s electricity infrastructure. This illustrates how peace processes, from the perspective of capital, can be incredibly profitable.

Of course, for the people, peace, the end of war, and the silencing of weapons are positive developments. But capital approaches these processes with the mindset of: “How can I profit from this? How can I invest here? How can I turn this into an advantage for myself?” In fact, the aggressive push of capital into energy, construction, and infrastructure projects in Syria offers a striking example of how so-called reconstruction efforts are leveraged, and how peace in Kurdistan could likewise be shaped in fundamentally capitalist terms rather than through genuine democratic resolution.

At the Mass Inauguration Ceremony for Renewable Energy Investments, Erdoğan also spoke about this so-called win-win logic. While the summit pointed to new geographies, it seems this inauguration was aimed at domestic moves. He mentioned new investments in nuclear energy, hydroelectric power, wind, and geothermal sources, emphasized energy demand, and pointed to outages in Europe. If we repeat the question we asked about the summit, who really benefits here?

A large number of major renewable energy projects were inaugurated all on the same day. These were investments that began in 2024. In recent years, incentives have increased for so-called renewable energy, particularly wind, solar, geothermal (which involves the use of underground water), and hydroelectric power plants. Hydrocarbons are also part of the broader energy conversation, but for now, they’re not present in Turkey.

According to the 12th Development Plan, there is a clear target to drastically increase solar energy installations by 2028. But in reality, the solar energy already produced in Turkey today is sufficient to meet household energy needs across the entire country. Still, this energy is not being made available for domestic use. These projects are not designed for local consumption, they are built on a model based on storage and export.

While renewable energy is generally seen positively, especially when compared to fossil fuels, because it can meet local energy demands more sustainably, it also requires intensive mineral extraction, which brings its own set of concerns. When these energy projects are implemented through massive investments by large corporations, they tend to cause even more serious problems.

Like what?

These projects are being built on top of farmland, pastures, forests, and animal migration routes. They result in the destruction of river systems, underground water reserves, and natural water basins. In that sense, they have already strayed far from the idea of “renewable” energy. But because these massive investments are framed as development initiatives, they continue to receive widespread support.

At the summit, and in various earlier meetings, the same narrative was repeated, both by Turkey and other countries: energy demand is going to keep rising. They claim that this is due to population growth and technological advancement. Therefore, they argue, we must develop energy strategies that can meet this increasing demand.

Is energy demand really going to increase, or are these investments being made just to store and sell energy, as you mentioned?

Here’s the thing: major states and corporations claim that we cannot fully transition away from fossil fuels. They say that even if renewable investments expand, they won’t be able to meet global energy demand. Therefore, they argue, we need to create an “energy mix.” In other words, fossil fuel extraction, like oil and natural gas, and the traditional methods of energy production based on them will continue. But at the same time, they say they will invest in hydrocarbons and renewable energy sources.

This narrative actually masks a deeper truth. First, we already know that the COP (Conference of Parties) processes are more of a climate spectacle than a real solution. Every year, these summits are dominated not by voices seriously committed to halting climate destruction or cutting carbon emissions, but by nuclear and renewable energy lobbyists.

These energy mix strategies are now embedded in state policies. So what we’re seeing is this: while governments say they are protecting the climate, they continue to invest in energy projects, including fossil fuels. It’s a contradictory position.

 The claim that “energy demand will increase” also reveals a telling absence, there is no real political discussion about how to reduce energy demand. This narrative of growing energy needs serves to justify more investment, expand profit margins, and create even greater opportunities for companies to accumulate wealth.

So in that sense, of course they would want energy demand to increase, driven by a Malthusian narrative that says ‘population will rise, and so will needs.’ But isn’t this a manipulation? Absolutely. No matter how much the population grows, if we had planned urbanization, planned regulation, and a planned system of energy democracy, such as energy cooperatives based on solidarity economies, then energy could be produced according to actual needs. In that model, there would be no overproduction, no surplus, and energy would not be treated as a commodity to be sold on the market. In such an economy, the idea of constantly growing energy demand simply wouldn’t exist.

But because they refuse to engage in this kind of debate, or deliberately avoid it, they insist, “Energy demand will increase, so we must invest.” The real issue here is neither climate protection nor the well-being of people and societies.

It’s about turning energy, just like water, into a tool of power in the marketplace, and in some cases, even in warfare. That has always been true for oil, but now we’re seeing the same logic applied to renewable energy. A recent example is the chip crisis triggered by competition over lithium resources. That moment served as a wake-up call for many.

Exactly like with lithium mining: ‘Let us take hold of these resources as quickly as possible so that in the event of any raw material shortage, we have the upper hand; let the world depend on us.’ That seems to be the policy. Yes, precisely. In fact, what should be a global transformation imposed by the urgency of the climate crisis has now itself become a geopolitical weapon, an instrument of international power used by states.

At the same time, many new forms of energy are also being discussed. One of the most prominent is the hydrocarbon issue, which is currently in high demand. There are already plans for major investments in this area. Another is deep-sea discharge and offshore wind energy, especially the construction of wind farms in international waters.

These initiatives are no longer limited to land. They are expanding into oceans and seas, disrupting their ecosystems and breaking their connection to the sun and air. And with that, we are also seeing a rise in efforts to extract deep-sea minerals, projects that will ultimately destroy the biodiversity and ecosystem life at the bottom of the oceans. This is one of the strategies that will likely expand even further in the coming years.