Greece's Inaugural Antarctic Foray: A New Chapter in Polar Engagement
The Greek flag raised at the Bulgarian Antarctic base St. Kliment Ohridski. Photo: Marina Velikova
In December 2024, Greece achieved a significant milestone in its polar agenda by sending researchers to Antarctica for the first time, notably two female scientists from the Polytechnic University of Crete. The Greek researchers, along with colleagues from the United Arab Emirates and Montenegro, boarded the Bulgarian vessel Sv. Sv. Kiril and Metodii in the Argentine port city of Ushuaia and joined the 33rd Bulgarian Antarctic expedition at the Bulgarian base, St. Kliment Ohridski.1) Their mission included conducting two experiments to examine the effects of isolation and extreme weather conditions on the physical and mental health of individuals participating in such expeditions, as well as the parameters influencing habitability in extreme environments.2) This historic event signifies more than just a scientific expedition; it marks Greece’s first formal presence on the icy continent, a region of considerable geopolitical importance governed by a unique legal framework. As global interest increasingly shifts to the poles, Greece’s inaugural Antarctic foray presents an opportunity to expand its scientific ambitions while advancing its foreign policy and geostrategic interests in the polar regions.
Science beyond National Jurisdiction under the Antarctic Treaty System
Scientific interest in the existence of Antarctica can be traced back to certain ancient Greek philosophers such as Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), who speculated about the necessity of a southern continent to balance the landmasses of the northern hemisphere.3) Aristotle proposed that while the northern hemisphere was associated with the constellation “Arktos” (the bear), the opposite end of the globe should be named “Antarktika,” derived from the Greek words anti- (άντι-) and arktos (αρκτικός), meaning “opposite the bear.”4) This hypothetical land would later acquire the name Terra Australis Incognita (“unknown southern land”) in Roman and Medieval thought. From its etymological and geographical conception, Antarctica has thus been historically defined as a place of opposition, inversion, and isolation.
Despite being larger in size than Europe and Oceania, due to its hostile climate conditions, remote location and, unlike its geographic opposite, the lack of Indigenous populations, it was not until the 19th century that Antarctica would start hosting an increasing number of state-led expeditions which would create a series of political developments that would themselves change the status of the continent in the international political arena. By the end of World War II, seven countries had made official territorial claims in Antarctica. Some of these claims, notably those by Argentina, Chile, and the United Kingdom, overlapped, creating economic and political tensions among the involved states. This situation, including the aforementioned disputes, arose during the early stages of the Cold War, a politically sensitive and unstable period, prompting discussions about establishing a governing framework for the planet’s only uninhabited continent.
This dialogue would eventually give birth to the Antarctic Treaty (1959), which serves as the foundation of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), standing as a landmark achievement in 20th-century international law and diplomacy. The Antarctic Treaty does not resolve territorial claims but rather puts them on hold.5) It establishes that no new claims can be made, and that existing claims are neither recognized nor denied. The Treaty’s primary objective is to ensure that Antarctica is used exclusively for peaceful purposes and scientific research, with all military activity prohibited.6) However, despite the safeguards provided by the Treaty—suspending new territorial claims and holding existing ones in abeyance—the continent’s ice, land, waters, and airspace remain a complex political arena due to overlapping claims and strategic interests.
The original signatories of the Antarctic Treaty were the twelve nations actively engaged in Antarctic research during the International Geophysical Year of 1957–58, who also participated in the 1959 diplomatic conference in Washington where the Treaty was negotiated. These countries have the right to engage in the meetings outlined in Article IX of the Treaty, known as the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (ATCM). Since the Treaty was established in 1959, an additional 46 countries have acceded to it. According to Article IX, paragraph 2, these nations may participate in the Consultative Meetings when/if they demonstrate their interest in Antarctica by “conducting substantial research activity there.” To date, seventeen of these acceding countries have had their Antarctic activities recognized as meeting the criteria under this provision, resulting in a total of twenty-nine Consultative Parties. The remaining 29 Non-Consultative Parties are invited to attend the Consultative Meetings but do not have voting rights or authority in the decision-making process.7)
Since the signing of the 1959 Treaty, the ATS has developed into a comprehensive framework that includes Agreed Measures, Conventions, Recommendations, Resolutions, and Protocols. Key components of the ATS include the 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (Madrid Protocol), which designates Antarctica as a “natural reserve, devoted to peace and science”;8) the 1980 Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), which focuses on preserving marine biodiversity; and the 1972 Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals, aimed at protecting Antarctic seal populations. This international system facilitates interactions between governments and advisory organizations, including, among others, the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), the Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs (COMNAP), the International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators (IAATO), and the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC).
Over the past five decades, the ATS has successfully maintained Antarctica as a region dedicated to peace and scientific exploration, serving as an exemplary framework for managing areas beyond national jurisdictions and ensuring peaceful and collaborative research. Specifically, Article II of the Antarctic Treaty guarantees the freedom of scientific investigation and cooperation in Antarctica, stipulating that scientific research, as well as the exchange of information and personnel, is to be conducted freely, and that the results of such research should be made freely available and openly accessible. Consequently, any country that is a party to the Antarctic Treaty may conduct scientific research in Antarctica, provided it adheres to the treaty’s guidelines and principles.
The Meaning of Greece’s first Scientific Engagement in Antarctica
Now, how does Greece come into play? Greece’s interest in Antarctica dates back to at least 1987, when the Mediterranean country acceded to the Antarctic Treaty on January 8, 1987, and later to the Madrid Protocol on January 14, 1998. Greece has also acceded to the CCAMLR but has not signed CCAS, which seems reasonable given the country’s historical lack of interest in sealing. As a signatory, Greece is committed to the ATS’-already discussed- principles that promote international scientific cooperation and prohibit military activity, while also protecting the Antarctic environment through the prohibition of any resource extraction and the regulation of mass tourism.9) However, Greece is a non-consultative party to the Antarctic Treaty, meaning, that, while it attends the ATCMs, it does not have voting rights because it has not yet demonstrated significant scientific activity in Antarctica, such as establishing a research station or conducting substantial research expeditions, as Article IX, paragraph 2 of the Antarctic Treaty stipulates.
Nevertheless, Greece’s participation in the 33rd Bulgarian Antarctic expedition carries significant symbolic value as it denotes the first endeavour of Greece to formally engage with Antarctic research. The organizing force behind the initiative has been the Hellenic Polar Zones Society (ELEPOZ), an independent scientific organization dedicated to advancing Greece’s interests in circumpolar research and enhancing its geostrategic role in the polar regions. Building on the collaboration and shared scientific experience produced by the EU funded EU-PolarNet 2 and Polar Research Infrastructure Network, ELEPOZ reached an agreement with the Bulgarian Antarctic Institute (BAI), according to which Greek scientists will have the opportunity to travel to and conduct research on the icy continent for the next five years as guests of the St. Kliment Ohridski Bulgarian Antarctic base. The St. Kliment Ohridski base is located on Livingston Island, which belongs to the sector historically claimed by Argentina, Chile and Britain. The five-year project, initiated with the participation of two female scientists, has been promoted by Greek government officials as a testament to the recovery and development of the Greek economy. Greece appears increasingly committed to establishing a permanent scientific presence in Antarctica, a goal repeatedly emphasized by ELEPOZ. As such, the Greek government presents Greece’s inaugural Antarctic foray as indisputable evidence of the country’s willingness to fund and support future expeditions that could gradually position it among the global leaders in Antarctic research.
Unravelling the Motives behind Greece’s Antarctic Initiative
What is, however, the driving strategic interest behind Greece’s inaugural Antarctic presence? Addressing this question requires a combination of speculative reasoning and the careful construction of a broader geopolitical framework in which Greece operates. In that sense, the present analysis has identified three central areas of interest that can help explain the growing Greek interest and engagement with Antarctica: the scientific interest per se, the economic prospects connected to the interests of Greek shipowners, and the overall geopolitical motivations connected to Greece’s increasing polar involvement.
Starting off with the Greek interest in polar research, it is important to note that the Mediterranean country has been drastically impacted by the effects of climate change, facing an increasing frequency of natural disasters each year, such as floods and wildfires, impacting both urban and rural areas. These recurring disasters have placed the term “climate change” at the center of political discourse, generating discussions that underscore the state’s apparent inability to effectively mitigate these hazards and highlight the urgent need for decisive action to safeguard its citizens in light of an increasingly precarious climate-driven future. In this context, it is no surprise that involvement in Antarctic scientific affairs—a process that can generate invaluable data on climate change—has become a logical and necessary part of the Greek governmental agenda, given that coastal nations, particularly those in the Mediterranean, are at the epicenter of effects produced by the melting polar ice, such as rising sea levels, flooding, and coastal erosion.10)
In addition to the scientific interest per se, certain economic interests can also be identified behind the Greek initiative in Antarctica. It is a rather well-known fact that the shipping industry and tourism are the most important sectors of the Greek national economy, with the Greek ship owners having been ranked first in the world for their owned merchant fleet for many consecutive years.11) Additionally, it is well known that Greek ship owners have traditionally wielded financial and societal power, visibly influencing political decision-making in areas such as public spending on scientific research. This influence is often exerted through media involvement, management of football teams, donations to political organizations, and other means.
In that sense, the connection of the Greek shipping industry with the ongoing developments taking place in Antarctica can be identified, firstly, on the increased global interest of certain state and private interests in the growing market regulating shipping and logistics to and from the continent, including fishing, tourism, and research-related transportation, which collectively represent an estimated $180 billion annually.12) In other words, the number and type of fishing, tourist and research vessels operating in the Antarctic is constantly increasing, a trend that, combined with the melting of the polar ice that facilitates navigation, indicating probable opportunities for investment for the, admittedly, already extroverted and outward-looking Greek ship owners. It should thus be considered no accident that the first Greek mission to Antarctica is partially sponsored by Laskaridis Maritime, a prominent Greek shipping company, 13) alongside support from the Greek Ministries of Development and Foreign Affairs and the Greek Parliament’s Special Permanent Committee on Environmental Protection.14) Notably, the Union of Greek Ship-Owners has already demonstrated an active interest in establishing its presence on the opposite pole of our planet, the Arctic, by becoming a member of the Arctic Economic Council, making the aforementioned hypothesis even more reliable.15)
Finally, it seems important to note that, apart from the particular national, scientific and economic interests that fuel the need for a Greek presence in Antarctica, there are certain motives that stem from Greece’s international alliances and their collective geopolitical strategy. As a member of the EU, Greece can be seen as attempting to align itself with other strong EU economies in terms of scientific research, while also strengthening cooperation at an academic level. Scientific research fosters ties among EU states during a challenging time for the Union’s cohesion. Such attempts align with the Union’s general political imperatives regarding the need for enhanced member cooperation and sustainable competition in every socioeconomic sector. While the EU lacks a formal unified Antarctic strategy and is not guided by a single, cohesive framework for Antarctic engagement, the icy continent is increasingly gaining attention also in Brussels due to the particular interests of certain EU member states like France, the only member of the Union with a ‘frozen’ territorial claim on Antarctica. It has been previously noted that the establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs) in the waters of the continent is at the core of the EU Antarctic vision, representing both an attempt to safeguard the Antarctic marine environment but also to limit the activities of its strategic competitors like China and Russia that have reacted negatively to such attempts.16) Furthermore, the EU has clearly stated its political intention to position itself as a leader in global environmental governance, with the participation of its members in Antarctic research and affairs being an important step toward achieving this goal, as a significant amount of climate change data is derived from research conducted in Antarctica.
Having stated these goals, it also becomes important to note the role and potentials for Greece in the procedure of achieving and safeguarding them. The importance of enhancing the Greek involvement in the continent seems to be directly connected to the risks that target the political equilibrium and stability in Antarctica that is communicated as a necessary precondition for these goals to be pursued. In detail, it has been noted elsewhere that the ongoing conflict in Ukraine has the potential to destabilize the long-standing cooperative status quo of Antarctica17) which, in addition to the rising conflicts in the Middle East, seems to create the need for more EU members to pursue the status of the Consultative Party (10 EU members currently) in order to greater influence the decision-making and promote the Union’s strategic goals. Similar risks are also portrayed by the U.S and other strategic partners of the EU as stemming from the increased Chinese activity in the continent, especially from China’s alleged plans to extract natural resources in Antarctica.18)
Becoming a Consultative Party
Along with the aforementioned strategic interests, the most significant advantage of a sovereign state’s involvement in the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), and Greece’s ultimate strategic goal, is achieving Consultative Party status. The criteria for attaining Consultative Party status under the Antarctic Treaty are specified in Article IX. According to this provision, a party can achieve consultative status by demonstrating its interest in Antarctica through the conduct of “substantial scientific research activity.” The Treaty provides two examples of how this interest may be demonstrated: by establishing a research station or by dispatching a scientific expedition to the continent (Article IX, paragraph 2). Furthermore, the Madrid Protocol includes legislation pertinent to a Party obtaining Consultative status stipulating that before a Party’s application for Consultative Party status can be evaluated, the Party must have “ratified, accepted, approved or acceded to the Protocol” and approved all effective Annexes to the Protocol, as specified in Decision 4, 2005 (Article 22.4). An applicant state must inform the depository government, the United States, that it believes it has met the criteria for consultative status and must provide evidence of its past and planned scientific activities.19) The depository government then distributes this information to the existing Consultative Parties for their review and the application is subsequently discussed at the next ATCM, where a decision is reached by consensus. Notably, the Treaty hasn’t managed to incorporate a formal mechanism for assessing whether the already established Consultative Parties continue to conduct “substantial scientific research.” However, in 2017, at the 42nd ATCM in Beijing, the ATS adopted the updated guidelines under Decision 2 on Consultative Party status, which articulates a clearer process for prospective candidates.20) Today, in order for a state to be promoted to the rank of Consultative Party an increasingly complex examination of its scientific relationship to Antarctica has to take place, examining the country’s scientific presence during the past 10 years in the continent, its contribution to scientific advancements, logistical details etc.) in order for the existing consultative parties to approve its promotion by consensus.21)
Arguably, the participation of the two Greek polytechnic scientisits in the Bulgarian expedition would not qualify as “substantial scientific research,” as the conduct of occassional and limited research is a common practice by several non-consultative members. While this procedure follows certain science-oriented guidelines and criteria described by the ATS, it also seems to be deeply affected by the broader geopolitical developments and alliances forming around the globe. The more recent example of this conflicting coexistence of different criteria is the rejection of the applications of both Canada and Belarus that appears to be directly connected to the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. In the case of Belarus multiple consultative members stated that the Eastern European country had not yet met the scientific requirements set by Article IX (2), while in the case of Canada it was the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China that made similar judgements. In other words, it seems that the rejection of the application of the former led to the politically driven rejection of the application of the latter.22) While this situation may not hold significant immediate political implications for Greece, it highlights the complex political dynamics underlying the ostensibly ‘non-political’ and conflict-free environment of Antarctica. Consequently, one could argue that, in addition to conducting substantial scientific research, the political support of existing stakeholders in the Antarctic Treaty System is also crucial for a country to pursue its Consultative-Party goals.
A Vision for Greece’s Polar Future
Greece’s first formal presence in Antarctica marks the beginning of a new chapter in the state’s engagement with the polar regions. As the impacts of climate change become increasingly apparent in the Mediteranean and the state’s circumpolar interests rapidly expand, Greece’s involvement in Antarctic research is both timely and necessary. By contributing to global scientific efforts, Greece can enhance its understanding of climate dynamics and develop strategies to protect its vulnerable ecosystems. The latter could represent the first milestone toward further engagement in “substantial scientific research” on the planet’s last uninhabited continent, which appears to be a crucial factor for the country’s political advancement in the region.
Greece’s interest in polar regions is yet not new. In recent years, the country has sought to increase its involvement in Arctic affairs, recognizing the geopolitical and environmental significance of the region.23) Although Greece’s 2015 application for observer status at the Arctic Council was not successful, the experience highlighted the importance of strategic planning and international collaboration. These lessons are applicable to Greece’s Antarctic ambitions as well. To maximize its impact, Greece must invest in scientific infrastructure and foster partnerships with established polar research institutions. By building on its Arctic experiences and the strong interest of Greek ship owners in both poles, Greece can develop a coherent strategy for Antarctic engagement, focusing on research, innovation, and international cooperation.
To realize the full potential of its Antarctic engagement, Greece must however commit to strategic planning and investment. The latter includes the dedication of a significant number of public resources and funds towards establishing a permanent research presence in Antarctica in order to support and maintain the infrastructure, technology and personnel dedicated to this mission. By fostering international partnerships and building on its Arctic experiences, Greece can establish itself as a key player in polar research and environmental governance. In a world where local challenges are increasingly global, Greece’s prelmiinary Antarctic foray offers a unique opportunity for the country to contribute to the preservation of our planet’s most fragile regions, while navigating the complexities of polar geopolitics. These “steps forward”,24) as described by the Greek minister of development, seem to be just the beginning of the broader plan of “raising the Greek flag in the South Pole”.25)
Apostolos Tsiouvalas is Research Associate at The Arctic Institute. Nikolaos Dimitrakopoulos is a Social Researcher at the University of Macedonia.
References