140
the very notion of multilateralism. The launch of this foreign policy stance coincided with a number of energy issues; not least the massive discrepancy between
supply and demand for oil domestically, the solutions to which were understood in
less confrontational terms (leaving to one side the overturning of the Kyoto
Protocol):
1. Increasing the extraction of domestic energy resources;
2. Changing the pattern of consumption from fossil fuels to new energies;
3. Bolstering US relations with energy-rich countries;
4. Modernizing the national energy infrastructure;
5. Non-compliance with internal environmental regulations;
6. Strengthening international technological cooperation;
7. Increasing supply diversification (Taheri and Farahmand 2014:20–21)
Some analysts believe that in this sense the Bush Doctrine marks a continuation
of the Reagan Doctrine, albeit with more flexibility in its implementation.
Accordingly, the reliance of the west on energy sourced from the Persian Gulf
meant bolstering relations with Middle Eastern countries, and thus Bush repeatedly
proclaimed the interests of the United States as in line with maintaining the security
of Israel, the security of the friendly Arab nations, and the security of free-flowing
from the region. Unilateralism and preemptive strikes were deemed acceptable in
achieving these goals, as well as in the face of terrorist threats, terrorist-supporting
states, and local powers seeking nuclear armament (Taheri and Farahmand
2014:20–21).
It may not be within the scope of this essay to analyze the significance played by
figures within George W. Bush’s cabinet with links to the oil industry, but some of
these included policymakers such as Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice. It has been commented that the links between Republican
Party members and the oil industry are reflected in OPEC countries’ preference for
Republican administrations (compared to Democratic Party members, who tend to
represent emerging industries, as evidenced in it being his tenure which marked the
beginning of the exploitation of domestic shale supplies) (Author’s interview with
Dr. Feridon Barkeshli 2017).
In May 2009, a conference organized by the “Brookings Energy Security
Initiative and National Committee” took place, in which US foreign policy analysts,
diplomats, and energy experts shared their views about the Bush administration’s
policy toward Central Asia and Caspian Sea region and prepared a number of policy
recommendations for the Obama administration. In a report entitled “Strategic
Assessment of the Caspian Sea Basin Region,” they outlined the following suggestions, namely to:
1. Maintain the sovereignty of the states in the region, offer aid in resolving conflict
in the Caucasus and fostering cooperation among Central Asian nations in terms
of resource sharing and policing. America should avoid implying that the West is
only interested in defeating Russia while it maintains energy security; it must
recognize the other issues in the region.
4 George W. Bush Energy Diplomacy
the very notion of multilateralism. The launch of this foreign policy stance coincided with a number of energy issues; not least the massive discrepancy between
supply and demand for oil domestically, the solutions to which were understood in
less confrontational terms (leaving to one side the overturning of the Kyoto
Protocol):
1. Increasing the extraction of domestic energy resources;
2. Changing the pattern of consumption from fossil fuels to new energies;
3. Bolstering US relations with energy-rich countries;
4. Modernizing the national energy infrastructure;
5. Non-compliance with internal environmental regulations;
6. Strengthening international technological cooperation;
7. Increasing supply diversification (Taheri and Farahmand 2014:20–21)
Some analysts believe that in this sense the Bush Doctrine marks a continuation
of the Reagan Doctrine, albeit with more flexibility in its implementation.
Accordingly, the reliance of the west on energy sourced from the Persian Gulf
meant bolstering relations with Middle Eastern countries, and thus Bush repeatedly
proclaimed the interests of the United States as in line with maintaining the security
of Israel, the security of the friendly Arab nations, and the security of free-flowing
from the region. Unilateralism and preemptive strikes were deemed acceptable in
achieving these goals, as well as in the face of terrorist threats, terrorist-supporting
states, and local powers seeking nuclear armament (Taheri and Farahmand
2014:20–21).
It may not be within the scope of this essay to analyze the significance played by
figures within George W. Bush’s cabinet with links to the oil industry, but some of
these included policymakers such as Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice. It has been commented that the links between Republican
Party members and the oil industry are reflected in OPEC countries’ preference for
Republican administrations (compared to Democratic Party members, who tend to
represent emerging industries, as evidenced in it being his tenure which marked the
beginning of the exploitation of domestic shale supplies) (Author’s interview with
Dr. Feridon Barkeshli 2017).
In May 2009, a conference organized by the “Brookings Energy Security
Initiative and National Committee” took place, in which US foreign policy analysts,
diplomats, and energy experts shared their views about the Bush administration’s
policy toward Central Asia and Caspian Sea region and prepared a number of policy
recommendations for the Obama administration. In a report entitled “Strategic
Assessment of the Caspian Sea Basin Region,” they outlined the following suggestions, namely to:
1. Maintain the sovereignty of the states in the region, offer aid in resolving conflict
in the Caucasus and fostering cooperation among Central Asian nations in terms
of resource sharing and policing. America should avoid implying that the West is
only interested in defeating Russia while it maintains energy security; it must
recognize the other issues in the region.
4 George W. Bush Energy Diplomacy