The Natural Security column: Hey, is energy independence really a good thing?
On November, 25 1973, President Richard Nixon addressed the nation in prime time. “Throughout its history, America has made great sacrifices of blood and also of treasure to achieve and maintain its independence,” he said. “In the last third of this century, our independence will depend on maintaining and achieving self-sufficiency in energy.”
By Sharon Burke
Best Defense czar for energy, climate change, and national security
On November, 25 1973, President Richard Nixon addressed the nation in prime time. “Throughout its history, America has made great sacrifices of blood and also of treasure to achieve and maintain its independence,” he said. “In the last third of this century, our independence will depend on maintaining and achieving self-sufficiency in energy.”
Today, the United States imports fewer barrels of oil than it did when Nixon gave that speech, and is fast approaching self-sufficiency (within North America, at least). But a new article in Proceedings magazine makes the case that it’s not necessarily a good thing. According to Commander Scott Bennie, it turns out there are geopolitical downsides to energy independence.
There’s much to like in the U.S. energy revolution — a lower global price for oil and gas, a healthier trade balance, more jobs at home, and a shifting power balance for major producers such as Iran. But in the article, Commander Bennie makes the point that America is no longer the biggest customer or investor for the rest of the world’s energy industry. That has opened up an economic vacuum, which China, India, and others are filling and will increasingly fill. A strategic and defense relationship inevitably goes along with a trade and commercial partnership.
If you’re an optimist, you could say that means new opportunities for burden sharing and common interests in ensuring the free flow of oil and other commerce through the world’s trade routes and choke points. If you’re a pessimist, you may be alarmed at the idea that China (hello, blue water navy) may now be the key strategic partner of choice (or no choice), not only for major oil exporters, such as Saudi Arabia, but also for major consumers that remain dependent on the Middle East, such as the European Union, South Korea, and Japan (i.e., key U.S. trade and security partners, regardless of where we get our oil).
The irony of the situation would not be lost on the President who opened the door for China. Be careful what you wish for, Richard Nixon.
Sharon E. Burke, a senior advisor at New America, served as the assistant secretary of defense for operational energy from 2010 to 2014. When the spirit moves, she writes the “Natural Security” column for the Best Defense.
Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.
The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.
Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.
How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
