It's pretty clear to anyone who tries to follow world news that there is a strong interrelationship between the world economy, the supply and price of oil and foreign policy -- ours as well as that of other countries.

Considering how oil could and should effect foreign policy, consider this...

86% of the world's oil reserves are owned by countries, not companies. The largest owners of oil reserves are the countries of Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Kuwait, etc. Even Canada and Mexico, two of the three largest suppliers of oil to the U.S. have nationalized oil companies. These countries band together in cartels, such as OPEC. The principal goals of these cartels is the determination of the best means for safeguarding the interests of the cartel members, individually and collectively. It also pursues ways and means of ensuring the stabilization of prices in international oil markets with a view to eliminating fluctuations in both supply and price; giving due regard at all times to the interests of the producing nations and to the necessity of securing a steady income to those producing countries.

While OPEC, as an example, is an economic cartel, it's very clear that each of the member countries conduct their own foreign policy with a constant eye towards using their oil as leverage to accomplish their political objectives. In 1973, the Arab members of OPEC plus Egypt and Syria launched an oil embargo against the U.S. in response to our decision to supply the Israeli military during the Yom Kippur war. We can all remember the long lines, closed gas stations and general disruption of our economy that resulted, I'm sure.

The U.S. and U.S. corporations own or control only 3% of the world's oil reserves, yet we consume almost 25% of annual world production, consuming at a rate which has grown steadily for at least two decades. Obviously, we cannot drill our way to energy independence. We simply do not have adequate oil reserves to supply the needs of our economy. Even if we were to have instantaneous access to all of the U.S. oil reserves, at the rate we consume oil we would exhaust our reserves completely in about ten years.

At the same time, other large oil consumers have developed. Both China and India have rapidly developing economies and their huge and growing consumption of oil has contributed to the escalation of oil prices. Their demands for oil are only expected to increase dramatically in coming years and decades.

The problem doesn't get any easier. The world population is currently about 6.7 billion people. By 2050 that is expected to grow to 9.0 billion. That means the world will have the equivalent of two more Chinas to feed, clothe, provide energy to heat their homes, cook their food and power the factories where they work. That will happen by the time our grandchildren reach middle age. While China has a program to build and start up one 500 megawatt coal-fired electric generating plant every week for the next ten years, we have special interest groups advertising on TV that there is no such thing as clean coal and that we shouldn't be building any coal-fired plants.

The situation raises the obvious question of how the U.S. should conduct our foreign policy as it relates to assuring an adequate and reliable supply of oil to our country at a reasonable price. We have refused to maintain foreign relations with some of the countries who have large oil reserves for various reasons: they don't hold the same human rights values as we do; they have a form of government which we don't agree with--dictatorships as an example; or they have done other things which we disagree with -- Iran's nuclear program comes to mind. Now there is conversation in some quarters that the U.S. remove us from NAFTA, where the other two largest participants also happen to be two of the three largest suppliers of oil to the U.S.--Canada and Mexico.

So the question of the relationship between our foreign policy and our economy, particularly as it is effected by oil, is apparent. Should the U.S. continue to refuse to have diplomatic relationships with countries with whom we have major differences, even though the result might be that those countries might be unreliable sources of the oil on which our economy depends? Should we refuse to conduct diplomacy with countries like Iran or Venezuela? Should we stiffen our position on a European anti-missle defense, knowing such action will cause deterioration in already fragile relations with Russia? Should we reverse our position on free-trade and become more protectionist of our own economy by withdrawing or substantially weakening the terms of NAFTA, knowing that both Canada and Mexico would be hurt economically, raising the question that they might turn to new trading partners like China and India to sell their oil?

Just what should our foreign policy be? Should the U.S. maintain its standards on human rights, personal freedoms and dictatorships, refusing to enter into diplomatic relationships with countries who differ with us? Or should we establish diplomatic relations with those countries, trying to convince them to share our objectives, but in the end cutting the best deal that we can in the interest of maintaining an adequate supply of oil needed to sustain our own economic growth? What should our ongoing relationship with Israel be? Are we willing to trade oil supplied to us by OPEC oil for our support of Israel, if it comes to that?

It's an interesting but very real question. What do you think?

A bit off topic, but whatever happened to nuclear power generation? The subject seemed to be embraced by both presidential candidates prior to the election, but has not been mentioned since.

If we were really serious about reducing dependence on oil from countries with ideaologies that the US finds to be repugnent, Why not do our best to plan for the eventual reduction/elimination of petroleum imports. Wind and solar are not the panacea they have been made out to be. Nuclear power will generate all the electricity we will need. It can produce hydrogen during off-peak generation times which will provide power for vehicles.

It takes years to build a nuclear power plant. Why not stimulate the economy by building these power plants now, while at the same time provide for succeeding generations?

as a focal point. I believe it will be very difficult to change our foreign policy significantly without compromising our stated values. And to modify it to accommodate oil availability only raises the same questions that arise each and every time the frailty of our energy situation is high lighted.

Policy is a an unpredictable long term variable that can change as a result of individuals, economic times, emotions and third party fallout, etc.

Not to shift the subject of the thread, however, every day that goes by without a specific energy independence plan here in the USA, the more we will be coerced into abiding by the whims of the oil suppliers at the time, regardless the policy in place. The growing demand and controlled supply will most certainly continue to aggrivate the price, reflecting in higher costs and economic turmoil.....AGAIN....no matter the policy in place at the time.

Then there is the wild card of terrorism that can easily cause an interruption in oil supply that will create an economic and human crisis such that it will make the current so called economic crisis seem like a cake walk. Policy will not affect a terrorist plot.

The only sensible way to assure the USA has adequate energy sources for the future is energy independence....WHAT EVER IT TAKES.

We have all witnessed that worldwide policies are nothing more than the expression of politics related to a specific individual/leader and their goals/objectives...words...to be changed at a whim. We are back in the la la land of less than $2 gasoline, so we the people are fat and happy once again and the cry for energy independence is barely a whimper...FOR NOW!

I support the USA serving notice on the oil producing countries of the world that we are in fact doing something about it. That they in fact can look forward to a day when they will be shipping no oil to the USA.

I support the USA putting the energy needs of the USA first, while there is a reasonable oil supply constantly shrouded by frail availability.

An energy independence will go a lot further in providing new research and jobs than the current stimulus pork joke.

Our foreign policy should be....ENERGY INDEPENDENCE!

BTK

Originally Posted by Guest

I support the USA putting the energy needs of the USA first, while there is a reasonable oil supply constantly shrouded by frail availability.
An energy independence will go a lot further in providing new research and jobs than the current stimulus pork joke.
Our foreign policy should be....ENERGY INDEPENDENCE!
BTK

But, Big Oil is a very powerful lobby.

There is no single answer to energy Independence. It is a do everything answer. Nuclear power plants, coal fired plants, wind, solar, natural gas, tides, and anything else we can do. Nuclear and coal because of the availability and domestic supply need to be the short term (10 year) solution while all the others being the longer term solution. Coal and tar sand can be converted to gas if necessary. None of these are easy answers and require a dedicated National Program to be successful. Coal can be burned cleanly if we work to develop that technology and we have a 400 year domestic supply. We do not seem to have the fortitude in this country to take on this problem. But unless we do, our way of life will be changed dramatically by those nations that do control the supply. Our foreign policy should not be dictated to us by those who own the oil. That is just a compromise that will lead to our demise as a world leader. "Drill Here, Drill now" needs to be changed to "Do it all here and now".

that gets it's way with the lawmakers and in no small secret, get put ahead of we the people. I have personally been responsible for constituent relations (corporate). I was responsible in my state for the needs of my company in relationship with the local, state, Congress, Senate (and POTUS when designated). My job on any legislation current, pending or in the fuzzy idea stage was to make personal contact with any or all that could have an impact on any bills that could affect the company. I was required to have a minimum of a monthly meeting with appropriate Congressional and Senate representatives to assure name and contact recognition with them and their aids. It was a well funded, well documented, well executed program. And in the number of years of my personal involvement we did in fact sway the direction legislation followed.

Why all the above?

My company was a Fortune 100 Company. Forget the $$$ aspect for a moment. Let's talk meaningful numbers. I don't care what company...or lobby...put them all together they pale in total to the population of we the people. The point? The companies and their representatives did what ever it takes to keep representatives informed of it's needs.

The majority of we the people DO NOTHING. We the people are quite content to be placed on page two of the law makers priorities. We the people are content with cheaters, liars, adulterers, tax evaders, et al who DO NOTHING for we the people.

The solution is simple....change....CHANGE....the apathetic citizen into a pro-active, demanding majority to be dealt with.

I am afraid none of us will live long enough to see that happen. Gas in our tanks, food on the table, golf to be played, vacations/cruises to be taken....the not in my back yard, apathetic, permissive, no expectation as long as it does not affect me crowd...GOOD LUCK.

That will change when the oil supply gets interrupted.....way too late.

My favorite subject....bar none....THE SILENT MAJORITY....gets what it deserves.

BTK

Originally Posted by Guest

.
The majority of we the people DO NOTHING.
BTK

Actually, we the people do quite a lot.
When Big Oil pays lobbyists to promote themselves to our lawmakers...when they bribe officials in foreign countries(and here at home)...when they buy the patents on battery systems and lock them out of sight....the money to do all that is coming out of our pockets. Sadly we are paying our money to have people work against our best interests.

I believe that the United States HAS diplomatic relations with everyone EXCEPT....Cuba, Iran, North Korea and maybe 1 or 2 others.

VK makes the point about REFUSING diplomatic relations....am I wrong on the countries we do not have relations with ?

Originally Posted by Guest

as a focal point. I believe it will be very difficult to change our foreign policy significantly without compromising our stated values. And to modify it to accommodate oil availability only raises the same questions that arise each and every time the frailty of our energy situation is high lighted.

Policy is a an unpredictable long term variable that can change as a result of individuals, economic times, emotions and third party fallout, etc.

Not to shift the subject of the thread, however, every day that goes by without a specific energy independence plan here in the USA, the more we will be coerced into abiding by the whims of the oil suppliers at the time, regardless the policy in place. The growing demand and controlled supply will most certainly continue to aggrivate the price, reflecting in higher costs and economic turmoil.....AGAIN....no matter the policy in place at the time.

Then there is the wild card of terrorism that can easily cause an interruption in oil supply that will create an economic and human crisis such that it will make the current so called economic crisis seem like a cake walk. Policy will not affect a terrorist plot.

The only sensible way to assure the USA has adequate energy sources for the future is energy independence....WHAT EVER IT TAKES.

We have all witnessed that worldwide policies are nothing more than the expression of politics related to a specific individual/leader and their goals/objectives...words...to be changed at a whim. We are back in the la la land of less than $2 gasoline, so we the people are fat and happy once again and the cry for energy independence is barely a whimper...FOR NOW!

I support the USA serving notice on the oil producing countries of the world that we are in fact doing something about it. That they in fact can look forward to a day when they will be shipping no oil to the USA.

I support the USA putting the energy needs of the USA first, while there is a reasonable oil supply constantly shrouded by frail availability.

An energy independence will go a lot further in providing new research and jobs than the current stimulus pork joke.

[Our foreign policy should be....ENERGY INDEPENDENCE!]

BTK

I believe that the US is the worlds largest producer of food and maybe we should use the same tactics that foreign countries use in trading oil to us, to their food supply from us.. Let them eat their oil!

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

It's pretty clear to anyone who tries to follow world news that there is a strong interrelationship between the world economy, the supply and price of oil and foreign policy -- ours as well as that of other countries.

Considering how oil could and should effect foreign policy, consider this...

86% of the world's oil reserves are owned by countries, not companies. The largest owners of oil reserves are the countries of Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Kuwait, etc. Even Canada and Mexico, two of the three largest suppliers of oil to the U.S. have nationalized oil companies. These countries band together in cartels, such as OPEC. The principal goals of these cartels is the determination of the best means for safeguarding the interests of the cartel members, individually and collectively. It also pursues ways and means of ensuring the stabilization of prices in international oil markets with a view to eliminating fluctuations in both supply and price; giving due regard at all times to the interests of the producing nations and to the necessity of securing a steady income to those producing countries.

While OPEC, as an example, is an economic cartel, it's very clear that each of the member countries conduct their own foreign policy with a constant eye towards using their oil as leverage to accomplish their political objectives. In 1973, the Arab members of OPEC plus Egypt and Syria launched an oil embargo against the U.S. in response to our decision to supply the Israeli military during the Yom Kippur war. We can all remember the long lines, closed gas stations and general disruption of our economy that resulted, I'm sure.

The U.S. and U.S. corporations own or control only 3% of the world's oil reserves, yet we consume almost 25% of annual world production, consuming at a rate which has grown steadily for at least two decades. Obviously, we cannot drill our way to energy independence. We simply do not have adequate oil reserves to supply the needs of our economy. Even if we were to have instantaneous access to all of the U.S. oil reserves, at the rate we consume oil we would exhaust our reserves completely in about ten years.

At the same time, other large oil consumers have developed. Both China and India have rapidly developing economies and their huge and growing consumption of oil has contributed to the escalation of oil prices. Their demands for oil are only expected to increase dramatically in coming years and decades.

The problem doesn't get any easier. The world population is currently about 6.7 billion people. By 2050 that is expected to grow to 9.0 billion. That means the world will have the equivalent of two more Chinas to feed, clothe, provide energy to heat their homes, cook their food and power the factories where they work. That will happen by the time our grandchildren reach middle age. While China has a program to build and start up one 500 megawatt coal-fired electric generating plant every week for the next ten years, we have special interest groups advertising on TV that there is no such thing as clean coal and that we shouldn't be building any coal-fired plants.

The situation raises the obvious question of how the U.S. should conduct our foreign policy as it relates to assuring an adequate and reliable supply of oil to our country at a reasonable price. We have refused to maintain foreign relations with some of the countries who have large oil reserves for various reasons: they don't hold the same human rights values as we do; they have a form of government which we don't agree with--dictatorships as an example; or they have done other things which we disagree with -- Iran's nuclear program comes to mind. Now there is conversation in some quarters that the U.S. remove us from NAFTA, where the other two largest participants also happen to be two of the three largest suppliers of oil to the U.S.--Canada and Mexico.

So the question of the relationship between our foreign policy and our economy, particularly as it is effected by oil, is apparent. Should the U.S. continue to refuse to have diplomatic relationships with countries with whom we have major differences, even though the result might be that those countries might be unreliable sources of the oil on which our economy depends? Should we refuse to conduct diplomacy with countries like Iran or Venezuela? Should we stiffen our position on a European anti-missle defense, knowing such action will cause deterioration in already fragile relations with Russia? Should we reverse our position on free-trade and become more protectionist of our own economy by withdrawing or substantially weakening the terms of NAFTA, knowing that both Canada and Mexico would be hurt economically, raising the question that they might turn to new trading partners like China and India to sell their oil?

Just what should our foreign policy be? Should the U.S. maintain its standards on human rights, personal freedoms and dictatorships, refusing to enter into diplomatic relationships with countries who differ with us? Or should we establish diplomatic relations with those countries, trying to convince them to share our objectives, but in the end cutting the best deal that we can in the interest of maintaining an adequate supply of oil needed to sustain our own economic growth? What should our ongoing relationship with Israel be? Are we willing to trade oil supplied to us by OPEC oil for our support of Israel, if it comes to that?

It's an interesting but very real question. What do you think?

Good topic.

For every administration, and for almost all other countries as well, foreign polciy has been based on two items - defense and economic reciprocity. Human rights and such are great headline grabbers, but in reality fall to the bottom of the diplomatic list in international relations. China has an abysmal human rights record, but is one of our major trading partners. The same is true with most of the MidEast nations. Oil goes one way - foodstuffs goe another - manufactured goods a third, and human rights issues are tossed whenever economics comes to the table.

Defense - mutual protection treaties - are another story.

There is no country that the US doesn't have "relations" with. In a couple of circumstances a third party provides the visible link - as the US mission in Cuba is associated through the Swiss. What goes on in public is not what happens in private, as even in the middle of wars, diplomatic links still exist.

In the coming years American foreign policy still needs to be linked to anti-terrorism efforts. It does the rest of the world no good for terrorism against the US to occur, because that closes the US market a little more each time, and makes America look more towards selective isolationism.

Our role as a consumer of world goods, and maintainer of the most lethal military force on the planet is important to all who seek defnse assistance and an economic partner.

So, foreign policy should be still "what's in the best interest for America" to continue to be at the acme of the quality-of-life pyramid.

Teddy Roosevelt's "speak softly, and carry a big stick" still holds true today, and should be the catch-phrase for the State Department. Butt-kissing two-bit despots and snobs gets one nowhere, and showing weakness or being too concilatory is a lousy negotiation technique demonstrating total naivete on inter-cultural dealings.

abuse of position prevails.

At some point, bail out and not standing for our basic freedoms will become even more nonsense than in current practice.

Then we will be confronted with the reality of recovery...if possible.

Time will tell....no confirm.

BTK