32
Jan H. Kalicki and David L. Doldwyn (2005:562–566) argue that the demand for
energy security—essentially, demand for access to stable and affordable supplies in
order to fuel electrification and transportation, color the foreign policy of every
developed, industrial and industrializing nation. In this regard, every country needs
a new energy security strategy to face the energy crisis challenges in the coming
years. The US generally follow six general principles at the board policy level if
more specific policy response can be dispensed with:
• Lead by example.
• Pursue homeland and global security.
• Adopt a national technology strategy.
• Continue to diversify supply.
• Expand the community of consumer nations.
• Multilateralize these efforts.
With energy concerns fully integrated into US foreign policy, the country faces
four major challenges: strengthening collective energy security, building alliances,
asserting its interests with energy suppliers, and addressing the rise of state control
in energy. US foreign policy responses to these challenges are
• Directness and respect
• A foreign policy that advocates the security and stability of the supplier
• Prioritizing the expansion of an umbrella of energy security for other major
consumers.
• Preparation for energy defense.
• Promotion of a free market in energy.
• Engagement with M.E. nations in a constructive, productive and candid way.
• Recognition of the basic role of government
• Conversion of energy poverty and global environmental concerns into the basis
a new global partnership. (Kalicki and Doldwyn 2005:562–566)
Meghan L. O’Sullivan believes that during the Obama administration a shale gas
revolution was a major actor in changing the world energy market, declining the
geopolitical power of major natural producers such as Russia. These developments
are partly as a result of how shale boom directly and indirectly boost the volume of
LNG on global gas markets and terms yet which consumers can gain approach to
this energy (O’Sullivan 2017:291).
According to Lutz Kleveman, the initial launching of the War on Terror first
focused international attention on the Caspian Basin as an area of strategic importance. Though admittedly an important one however the Afghan campaign was only
one episode in a much larger struggle: the “New Great Game” had begun. Coined in
the early 1990s, the term described the odd return of the first “Great Game” in the
nineteenth century in which a tense détente between the British Empire and Tsarist
Russia over supremacy in Asia fanned tensions on both sides. Kleveman points out
that, while these British and Russian officers were often charged with spreading
influence along the lands of the Silk Road often changed as in the guise of explorers
and cartographers, they have now been replaced by a new brand of adventurer:
2 Literature Review
Jan H. Kalicki and David L. Doldwyn (2005:562–566) argue that the demand for
energy security—essentially, demand for access to stable and affordable supplies in
order to fuel electrification and transportation, color the foreign policy of every
developed, industrial and industrializing nation. In this regard, every country needs
a new energy security strategy to face the energy crisis challenges in the coming
years. The US generally follow six general principles at the board policy level if
more specific policy response can be dispensed with:
• Lead by example.
• Pursue homeland and global security.
• Adopt a national technology strategy.
• Continue to diversify supply.
• Expand the community of consumer nations.
• Multilateralize these efforts.
With energy concerns fully integrated into US foreign policy, the country faces
four major challenges: strengthening collective energy security, building alliances,
asserting its interests with energy suppliers, and addressing the rise of state control
in energy. US foreign policy responses to these challenges are
• Directness and respect
• A foreign policy that advocates the security and stability of the supplier
• Prioritizing the expansion of an umbrella of energy security for other major
consumers.
• Preparation for energy defense.
• Promotion of a free market in energy.
• Engagement with M.E. nations in a constructive, productive and candid way.
• Recognition of the basic role of government
• Conversion of energy poverty and global environmental concerns into the basis
a new global partnership. (Kalicki and Doldwyn 2005:562–566)
Meghan L. O’Sullivan believes that during the Obama administration a shale gas
revolution was a major actor in changing the world energy market, declining the
geopolitical power of major natural producers such as Russia. These developments
are partly as a result of how shale boom directly and indirectly boost the volume of
LNG on global gas markets and terms yet which consumers can gain approach to
this energy (O’Sullivan 2017:291).
According to Lutz Kleveman, the initial launching of the War on Terror first
focused international attention on the Caspian Basin as an area of strategic importance. Though admittedly an important one however the Afghan campaign was only
one episode in a much larger struggle: the “New Great Game” had begun. Coined in
the early 1990s, the term described the odd return of the first “Great Game” in the
nineteenth century in which a tense détente between the British Empire and Tsarist
Russia over supremacy in Asia fanned tensions on both sides. Kleveman points out
that, while these British and Russian officers were often charged with spreading
influence along the lands of the Silk Road often changed as in the guise of explorers
and cartographers, they have now been replaced by a new brand of adventurer:
2 Literature Review