12
Classical realism, while having strengths in explaining the position of energy
resources in foreign policy, is not able to explain why all governments do not use
their existing energy resources to increase their power and influence abroad. This
theory cannot explain the behavior of some countries with huge energy reserves in
relation to the international environment; for example, although this theory has
ideas for explaining the behavior of the countries of Iran and Venezuela, it cannot
manage the behavior of countries like Canada, Mexico, Norway, and the Netherlands,
who possess a lot of energy supplies but do not use them extensively in their foreign
relations. A point that can be used as a tool to help classical realism to get rid of this
puzzle is to apply ethical motives in shaping government behaviors. This argument
by Morgenthau, although not included in the set of principles of classical realism,
has been addressed in his writings (Shirkhani and Mohajer Pour 2012:18).
Neoclassical thought can also explain the difference in the foreign policy of oil
and gas importing countries; for example, American behavior within the framework
of energy independence and preservation of superiority in the international system
with approaches to the exploitation of conventional and unconventional reserves, as
well as occupation and control of the land-resource-dominated countries and political domination of exporting countries can be explained. Similarly, the difference in
the behavior of a country such as Japan with an attitude of sustaining the existing
conditions in the international system, and the behavior of the government of China,
which, while faced with limited resources like Japan, has a different attitude toward
the structure of power in the international system, can be explained from a neoclassical perspective (Shirkhani and Mohajer Pour, 2012:36).
Despite the constant changes in the relations of nations, the basic structure of
international politics is still anarchic. Every state continues to protect itself, whether
or not it cooperates with its counterparts. The leaders of states, and their supporters,
attach importance to the positions of their countries according to their rank (Waltz
2000:5–41). The uncertainty of the future is felt in every realm of life, and none less
so than in international politics. Anarchy increases the value of the prediction. It
follows logically, then, that seeing that it is not possible to know what will happen
in the future, improving the state’s resource base according to existing conditions
may at least ensure prosperity will develop more robustly for the interim (Waltz
2000:5–41). The significance of peace and stability is almost self-evident: Friction
occurs with a systematic deterioration of stability. The systems which emerged after
the Great Wars seem to remain intact. The multipolar world order has proved largely
stable, regardless of the unending turmoil which exists within that order (Waltz
2000:5–41). The US has a broad and ongoing interest in understanding and having
access to energy resources and markets throughout the world, including in the
region of the Caspian Basin, since it is both a major world consumer of energy and
an exporter of energy. Access to energy resources is fundamental to the advancement and stability of the US and global economy. In addition, the US strategically
concern about preserving the stable condition in the Caspian region, as one of the
major access routes to Central Asia, and as part of a broader region which is prone
to instabilities and unforeseen events which could affect US world interests
(Author’s interview with Ambassador John Marsca 2016).
1 Theoretical Framework
Classical realism, while having strengths in explaining the position of energy
resources in foreign policy, is not able to explain why all governments do not use
their existing energy resources to increase their power and influence abroad. This
theory cannot explain the behavior of some countries with huge energy reserves in
relation to the international environment; for example, although this theory has
ideas for explaining the behavior of the countries of Iran and Venezuela, it cannot
manage the behavior of countries like Canada, Mexico, Norway, and the Netherlands,
who possess a lot of energy supplies but do not use them extensively in their foreign
relations. A point that can be used as a tool to help classical realism to get rid of this
puzzle is to apply ethical motives in shaping government behaviors. This argument
by Morgenthau, although not included in the set of principles of classical realism,
has been addressed in his writings (Shirkhani and Mohajer Pour 2012:18).
Neoclassical thought can also explain the difference in the foreign policy of oil
and gas importing countries; for example, American behavior within the framework
of energy independence and preservation of superiority in the international system
with approaches to the exploitation of conventional and unconventional reserves, as
well as occupation and control of the land-resource-dominated countries and political domination of exporting countries can be explained. Similarly, the difference in
the behavior of a country such as Japan with an attitude of sustaining the existing
conditions in the international system, and the behavior of the government of China,
which, while faced with limited resources like Japan, has a different attitude toward
the structure of power in the international system, can be explained from a neoclassical perspective (Shirkhani and Mohajer Pour, 2012:36).
Despite the constant changes in the relations of nations, the basic structure of
international politics is still anarchic. Every state continues to protect itself, whether
or not it cooperates with its counterparts. The leaders of states, and their supporters,
attach importance to the positions of their countries according to their rank (Waltz
2000:5–41). The uncertainty of the future is felt in every realm of life, and none less
so than in international politics. Anarchy increases the value of the prediction. It
follows logically, then, that seeing that it is not possible to know what will happen
in the future, improving the state’s resource base according to existing conditions
may at least ensure prosperity will develop more robustly for the interim (Waltz
2000:5–41). The significance of peace and stability is almost self-evident: Friction
occurs with a systematic deterioration of stability. The systems which emerged after
the Great Wars seem to remain intact. The multipolar world order has proved largely
stable, regardless of the unending turmoil which exists within that order (Waltz
2000:5–41). The US has a broad and ongoing interest in understanding and having
access to energy resources and markets throughout the world, including in the
region of the Caspian Basin, since it is both a major world consumer of energy and
an exporter of energy. Access to energy resources is fundamental to the advancement and stability of the US and global economy. In addition, the US strategically
concern about preserving the stable condition in the Caspian region, as one of the
major access routes to Central Asia, and as part of a broader region which is prone
to instabilities and unforeseen events which could affect US world interests
(Author’s interview with Ambassador John Marsca 2016).
1 Theoretical Framework