Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

See All Tags

August 3, 2007 |  3 comments |  Print | E-Mail Your Opinion  

Five Principles for US Energy Security

Stuart M. Butler: and Kim R. Holmes of the Heritage Foundation: We argue that US energy security demands a free market. Policy makers should encourage global economic participation by American businesses, trade with free democratic regimes, and diversification of fuel sources.

American demand for energy is increasing faster than secure supplies. Much of the world’s supply of oil is delivered in a restrictive market dominated by unstable or hostile nations, some of which are using energy as a tool to frustrate U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives. Sound national energy policies must enable America to obtain energy supplies from a wide range of sources in a way that is best for the economy and at the same time addresses homeland and national security considerations. An abundant, diverse energy supply is central to America’s freedom and prosperity.

The guiding foreign policy principles for American energy security should therefore focus on protecting America’s energy interests and advancing free global energy markets, in the following ways:

1. Ensure that any effort to reduce reliance on foreign oil is grounded in economically sound policy. The first steps in reducing reliance on foreign oil are to make full use of domestic petroleum reserves and to remove disincentives to investment in oil production from friendly nations. These should be coupled with efforts to encourage diversification away from petroleum by the private sector–led development of alternatives that can compete in their own right. Restrictions on international growth in alternatives, such as the tariffs that limit ethanol imports into the United States, should be eliminated.

2. Develop foreign policies that thwart the capacity of coercive regimes to employ energy supplies as an economic weapon. America should be concerned not only about the dependability of its own energy, but also about that of its friends and allies. Regimes that withhold or restrict energy supplies as an instrument of national policy threaten not only regional stability and prosperity, but also the economy and national interests of the United States. The United States should develop strong bilateral measures to deal with efforts by coercive regimes to wage economic warfare. These might include joint contingency planning, public–private initiatives, and research and development initiatives.

3. Sustain access to the global marketplace. Remaining an integral part of the global economy is vital to long-term U.S. national security and the country’s continuing economic competitiveness. The greatest degree of security comes from having access to the global marketplace and obtaining goods, resources, and services based on market decisions from friendly suppliers. It is in the vital interest of the United States to uphold the principle of freedom of the seas and to promote and protect the ways and means of free trade among nations acting in accordance with the rule of law. To accomplish this, the United States should retain the capability to use all of the instruments of national power—including military, diplomatic, law enforcement, intelligence, economic, and informational power—in any theater where U.S. interests could be at risk.

4. Discourage restrictive international regimes. OPEC and non-OPEC countries with restrictive foreign investment laws, state monopolies, and excessive government intervention undermine the U.S. effort to promote free markets. U.S. economic and foreign policy should seek to discourage these practices.

5. Recognize that not all trading partners are equal. Free people have the right to decide with whom to conduct business, but trade in critical but vulnerable goods and services is best conducted with other free peoples. America’s closest friends and allies should be viewed as the most reliable trading partners for supplying oil and other energy supplies. Geostrategic military and economic alliances will change, of course, and the U.S. should be prepared to adapt, but Americans should seek to conduct energy business with countries that respect the rule of law, combat corruption and terrorism, and foster economic opportunity, democracy, and justice.

Conclusion
Americans understand that freedom, opportunity, and their very quality of life suffer when abundant, affordable energy supplies are threatened. They expect Washington to enact policies that protect their interests. Congress and the Administration would do this best by following these guidelines to advance freedom in energy markets not just at home, but worldwide.


Stuart M. Butler, Ph.D., is Vice President for Domestic and Economic Policy Studies, and Kim R. Holmes, Ph.D., is Vice President for Foreign and Defense Policy Studies and Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.


This article is an abridged version of “Twelve Principles to Guide U.S. Energy Policy,” Backgrounder #2046 from the Heritage Foundation. The original article can be found at the Heritage website.


Related Materials from the Atlantic Community

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
 
Comments
Tobias  Wolny

August 3, 2007

  • 6
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
An interesting set of principles but perhaps not fully aligned with today’s political realities and energy markets? Of course we all prefer to import oil & gas from our OECD friends in, say, Norway and the UK. And of course we all agree that Sudan or some oil-rich Taliban type of regime would not be a desirable trading partner.

Unfortunately, the world is more complex, oil & gas reserves are developed in ever more remote and politically less stable regions. What can we do to gain access to these resources? How can we ensure efficient development of global energy resources? How can we create mutual advantage with resource-rich countries at the same time as contributing to their good governance and transparency? These are the challenges we are facing today. And of course climate change, but that appears to be secondary to the authors.

The authors’ advice to retain the capability to use military power to achieve free energy trade sounds disturbing to my Venus-shaped European ears.
I would also be curious to know which coercive regimes the authors have in mind. And I am not sure whether arming Gulf countries and Saudi Arabia is the right way forward to secure free markets and stability in the fragile Middle East, the most important global energy region.
 
C. Scott  Miller

August 4, 2007

  • 4
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Consumer energy purchases have been constrained for too long to petroleum products. It is amazing, too, how many of our other products - chemicals, plastics, fabrics, and fertilizers - come from petroleum residues.

We need to develop choices for the consumer at the pump. Brazil has demonstrated how choosing between gasoline and ethanol has benefitted their economy and energy stability and helped to make them energy self-sufficient. We need to do the same here.

We have a tremendous opportunity to build true security in the United States by making it once again energy self-reliant. We can also lead the world as an exporter of new technologies to make developing countries more self-reliant.

Our rural communities have been declining through most of the twentieth century in spite of forward leaps in productivity. The economies of individual farms and forests need to be revitalized with new income streams. Their products and waste can provide the biomass for biorefining into biofuels and for generating green electricity.

We have already seen the benefits of strong demand for corn and ethanol - rising prices and real estate values. Similar benefits can be achieved in the Wood Basket of America - the great Southeast, an area long suffering from its depressed forestry products industry. New income streams can not only secure rural economies, but lead to better stewardship of our natural resources, land, and air quality.

In the mass communication age the term "military security" has become an oxymoron because mass media's tendencies to bridge cultural divides destroys conflict containment efforts. True economic and national security comes from increased self-reliance and diplomatic credibility.

The government should provide investment incentives for new biotechnologies that create energy from ag, forest, and urban wastes. Energy crops should also be developed. A stronger heartland , a self-reliant America will result.
Tags: | energy | self-reliance | ethanol | security | forestry | farms | waste |
 
Annie  Glimmerglass

August 7, 2007

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
C. Scott Miller writes "The government should provide investment incentives for new biotechnologies that create energy...." etc.

When the US government and the US carmakers stop SUPPRESSING ideas and inventions for new biotechnologies that create energy and fuel cars, THEN a self-reliant America will result!
 

Create Comment

Type the characters shown in the image below into the textfield.
Captcha

What are tags?

Community

Jobs / Internships

Call for Papers

Atlantic Events

Partners

User of the day

Samantha  Ferrell
Samantha Ferrell
Member since
January 9, 2008

Poll


DW-WORLD.DE


Europe
Europe
Business




DW-TV Live DW-Radio Live