"Peace through strength" is a phrase which suggests that militarypower can help preserve peace. It is quite old and has famously been used by many leaders from Roman EmperorHadrian in the first century AD to former U.S.PresidentRonald Reagan in the 1980s. The concept has long been associated with realpolitik. The idea has critics, with Andrew Bacevich stating: "'Peace through strength' easily enough becomes 'peace through war.'"
History
The phrase and concept date to ancient times. Roman EmperorHadrian (AD 76–138) is said to have sought "peace through strength or, failing that, peace through threat".[2]Hadrian's Wall was a symbol of this policy.
There is a rank due to the United States among nations
which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of
weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if
we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our
rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for
war.
In Federalist No. 24, Alexander Hamilton
argued for peace through strength, stating that strong garrisons in the
west and a navy in the east would protect the Union from the threat of
Britain and Spain.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan used the phrase during his election challenge against Jimmy Carter, accusing the incumbent of weak, vacillating leadership that invited enemies to attack the United States and its allies. Reagan later considered it one of the mainstays of his foreign policy as President. In 1986, he explained it thus:
We know that peace is the condition under which mankind
was meant to flourish. Yet peace does not exist of its own will. It
depends on us, on our courage to build it and guard it and pass it on to
future generations. George Washington's words may seem hard and cold
today, but history has proven him right again and again. "To be prepared
for war," he said, "is one of the most effective means of preserving
peace." Well, to those who think strength provokes conflict, Will Rogers had his own answer. He said of the world heavyweight champion of his day: "I've never seen anyone insult Jack Dempsey.
The approach has been credited for forcing the Soviet Union to lose the arms race and end the Cold War. "Peace Through Strength" is the official motto of the Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76).
"Peace Through Strength" appeared in the Republican Party platforms of 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008, 2012, and 2016.
On assuming office in January 2017, President Trump cited the idea of "Peace Through Strength" as central to his overall "America First" foreign policy.
As such the introduction to US National Defense Strategy of 2018
states: The US force posture combined with the allies will "preserve
peace through strength". The document proceeds to detail what "achieving
peace through strength requires".
Criticism
For Andrew Bacevich,
"belief in the efficacy of military power almost inevitably breeds the
temptation to put that power to work. 'Peace through strength' easily
enough becomes 'peace through war.'"
The mock inversion "strength through peace" has been used on
occasion to draw criticism to the militaristic system of diplomacy
advocated by "peace through strength". Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich
adopted the slogan "Strength Through Peace" during his 2008
Presidential run, as part of his platform as a peace candidate in
opposition to the Iraq War.
Trademark dispute
During Reagan's presidency, the non-profit American Security Council Foundation
(ASCF) and its for-profit direct-mail provider, Communications
Corporation of America, sought to influence United States foreign policy
by promoting the idea, but after the Soviet collapse of 1991 ASCF fell
into obscurity while other organizations continued to promote the
slogan. The Heritage Foundation and the Center for Security Policy (CSP) have also used the term in print. The ASCF registered a trademark for the phrase in April 2011. In September 2012, ASCF filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against CSP and Frank Gaffney, prompting the Washington City Paper to ridicule ASCF's Director of Operations, Gary James, for editing the online encyclopedia Wikipedia article titled 'Peace through strength' so that it was "drenched in ... ASCF references".
Following a counterclaim by the CSP alleging that the trademark
application had been fraudulent, in August 2013 the ACSF announced that
it had settled the lawsuit with the CSP and would cancel its trademark
claim.
Under the Reagan Doctrine, the United States provided overt and covert aid to anti-communistguerrillas and resistance movements in an effort to "roll back"
Soviet-backed pro-communist governments in Africa, Asia, and Latin
America. The doctrine was designed to diminish Soviet influence in these
regions as part of the administration's overall strategy to win the
Cold War.
Background
The Reagan Doctrine followed in the tradition of U.S. presidents
developing foreign policy "doctrines", which were designed to reflect
challenges facing international relations, and to propose foreign policy
solutions. The practice began with the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, and continued with the Roosevelt Corollary, sometimes called the Roosevelt Doctrine, introduced by Theodore Roosevelt in 1904.
The post–World War II tradition of Presidential doctrines started with the Truman Doctrine in 1947, under which the US provided support to the governments of Greece and Turkey as part of a Cold War strategy to keep both nations out of the Soviet sphere of influence. It was followed by the Eisenhower Doctrine, the Kennedy Doctrine, the Johnson Doctrine, the Nixon Doctrine, and the Carter Doctrine,
all of which defined the foreign policy approaches of these respective
U.S. presidents on some of the largest global challenges of their
presidencies.
Origins
Carter administration and Afghanistan
To watch the
courageous Afghan freedom fighters battle modern arsenals with simple
hand-held weapons is an inspiration to those who love freedom.
At least one component of the Reagan Doctrine technically pre-dated the Reagan Presidency. In Afghanistan, the Carter administration began providing limited covert military assistance to Afghanistan's mujahideen in an effort to drive the Soviets out of the nation, or at least raise the military and political cost of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
The policy of aiding the mujahideen in their war against the Soviet
occupation was originally proposed by Carter's national security adviser
Zbigniew Brzezinski and was implemented by U.S. intelligence services. It enjoyed broad bipartisan political support.
Democratic congressman Charlie Wilson
became obsessed with the Afghan cause, and was able to leverage his
position on the House Appropriations committees to encourage other
Democratic congressmen to vote for CIA Afghan war money, with the tacit
approval of Speaker of the HouseTip O'Neill (D-MA),
even as the Democratic party lambasted Reagan for the CIA's secret war
in Central America. It was a complex web of relationships described in George Crile III's book Charlie Wilson's War.
Wilson teamed with CIA manager Gust Avrakotos and formed a team of a few dozen insiders who greatly enhanced the support for the Mujahideen, funneling it through Zia ul-Haq'sISI.
Avrakotos and Wilson charmed leaders from various anti-Soviet countries
including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and China to increase support
for the rebels. Avrakotos hired Michael G. Vickers,
a young Paramilitary Officer, to enhance the guerilla's odds by
revamping the tactics, weapons, logistics, and training used by the
Mujahideen. Michael Pillsbury, a Pentagon official, and Vincent Cannistraro pushed the CIA to supply the Stinger missile to the rebels. President Reagan's Covert Action program has been given credit for assisting in ending the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
Origin and advocates
With the arrival of the Reagan administration, The Heritage Foundation
and other conservative foreign policy think tanks saw a political
opportunity to significantly expand Carter's Afghanistan policy into a
more global "doctrine", including U.S. support to anti-communist
resistance movements in Soviet-allied nations in Africa, Asia, and Latin
America. According to political analysts Thomas Bodenheimer and Robert
Gould, "it was the Heritage Foundation that translated theory into
concrete policy. Heritage targeted nine nations for rollback: Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Iran, Laos, Libya, Nicaragua, and Vietnam".
Throughout the 1980s, the Heritage Foundation's foreign policy expert on the Third World, Michael Johns,
the foundation's principal Reagan Doctrine advocate, visited with
resistance movements in Angola, Cambodia, Nicaragua, and other
Soviet-supported nations and urged the Reagan administration to initiate
or expand military and political support to them. Heritage Foundation
foreign policy experts also endorsed the Reagan Doctrine in two of their
Mandate for Leadership books, which provided comprehensive policy advice to Reagan administration officials.
The result was that, unlike in Afghanistan, the Reagan Doctrine
was rather quickly applied in Angola and Nicaragua, with the United
States providing military support to the UNITA movement in Angola and the "contras"
in Nicaragua, but without a declaration of war against either country.
Addressing the Heritage Foundation in October 1989, UNITA leader Jonas Savimbi called the Heritage Foundation's efforts "a source of great support. No Angolan will forget your efforts. You have come to Jamba, and you have taken our message to Congress and the Administration". U.S. aid to UNITA began to flow overtly after Congress repealed the Clark Amendment, a long-standing legislative prohibition on military aid to UNITA.
Following these victories, Johns and the Heritage Foundation
urged further expanding the Reagan Doctrine to Ethiopia, where they
argued that the Ethiopian famine was a product of the military and agricultural policies of Ethiopia's Soviet-supported Mengistu Haile Mariam government. Johns and Heritage also argued that Mengistu's decision to permit a Soviet naval and air presence on the Red Sea ports of Eritrea represented a strategic challenge to U.S. security interests in the Middle East and North Africa.
The Heritage Foundation and the Reagan administration also sought
to apply the Reagan Doctrine in Cambodia. The largest resistance
movement fighting Cambodia's communist government was largely made up of
members of the former Khmer Rouge
regime, whose human rights record was among the worst of the 20th
century. Therefore, Reagan authorized the provision of aid to a smaller
Cambodian resistance movement, a coalition called the Khmer People's National Liberation Front, known as the KPNLF and then run by Son Sann; in an effort to force an end to the Vietnamese occupation.
While the Reagan Doctrine enjoyed strong support from the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, the libertarian-oriented Cato Institute
opposed the Reagan Doctrine, arguing in 1986 that "most Third World
struggles take place in arenas and involve issues far removed from
legitimate American security needs. U.S. involvement in such conflicts
expands the republic's already overextended commitments without
achieving any significant prospective gains. Instead of draining Soviet
military and financial resources, we end up dissipating our own."
Even Cato, however, conceded that the Reagan Doctrine had "fired
the enthusiasm of the conservative movement in the United States as no
foreign policy issue has done in decades". While opposing the Reagan
Doctrine as an official governmental policy, Cato instead urged Congress
to remove the legal barriers prohibiting private organizations and
citizens from supporting these resistance movements.
Reagan himself was a vocal proponent of the policy. Seeking to expand Congressional support for the doctrine in the 1985 State of the Union Address
in February 1985, Reagan said: "We must not break faith with those who
are risking their lives ... on every continent, from Afghanistan to
Nicaragua ... to defy Soviet aggression and secure rights which have
been ours from birth. Support for freedom fighters is self-defense".
As part of his effort to gain Congressional support for the Nicaraguan contras, Reagan labeled the contras "the moral equivalent of our founding fathers", which was controversial because the contras had shown a disregard for human rights. There also were allegations that some members of the contra leadership were involved in cocaine trafficking.
Reagan and other conservative advocates of the Reagan Doctrine
advocates also argued that the doctrine served U.S. foreign policy and
strategic objectives and was a moral imperative against the former Soviet Union, which Reagan, his advisers, and supporters labeled an "evil empire".
Other advocates
Other early conservative advocates for the Reagan Doctrine included influential activist Grover Norquist, who ultimately became a registered UNITA lobbyist and an economic adviser to Savimbi's UNITA movement in Angola, and former Reagan speechwriter and former U.S. CongressmanDana Rohrabacher, who made several secret visits with the mujahideen in Afghanistan and returned with glowing reports of their bravery against the Soviet occupation. Rohrabacher was led to Afghanistan by his contact with the mujahideen, Jack Wheeler.
Phrase's origin
In 1985, as U.S. support was flowing to the Mujahideen, Savimbi's UNITA, and the Nicaraguan contras, columnist Charles Krauthammer, in an essay for Time magazine, labeled the policy the "Reagan Doctrine," and the name stuck.
Krauthammer has said of his writing in support of the Reagan Doctrine,
I basically came to the conclusion
... the Soviets had overextended their empire, and they were getting
what the West had gotten with its overextended empire decades before a
reaction, they got a rebellion, they got resistance. And the Soviets
were now beginning to feel it, and the genius of Reagan, although I
don't think they had a plan in doing this is he instinctively realized
that one of the ways to go after the Soviets was indirect, and that is
you go after their proxies, you go after their allies, you go after
their clients, or even in Afghanistan you go after them directly. So
that's what I called the Reagan Doctrine, it was sort of the opposite of
the Brezhnev Doctrine, which was whatever we control we keep. And Reagan was saying, no you don't.
The Reagan Doctrine was especially significant because it represented
a substantial shift in the post–World War II foreign policy of the
United States. Prior to the Reagan Doctrine, U.S. foreign policy in the
Cold War was rooted in "containment", as originally defined by George F. Kennan, John Foster Dulles,
and other post–World War II U.S. foreign policy experts. In January
1977, four years prior to becoming president, Reagan bluntly stated, in a
conversation with Richard V. Allen,
his basic expectation in relation to the Cold War. "My idea of American
policy toward the Soviet Union is simple, and some would say
simplistic," he said. "It is this: We win and they lose. What do you
think of that?"
Although a similar policy of "rollback" had been considered on a
few occasions during the Cold War, the U.S. government, fearing an
escalation of the Cold War and possible nuclear conflict,
chose not to confront the Soviet Union directly. With the Reagan
Doctrine, those fears were set aside and the United States began to
openly confront Soviet-supported governments through support of rebel
movements in the doctrine's targeted countries.
One perceived benefit of the Reagan Doctrine was the relatively
low cost of supporting guerrilla forces compared to the Soviet Union's
expenses in propping up client states. Another benefit was the lack of
direct involvement of American troops, which allowed the United States
to confront Soviet allies without sustaining casualties. Especially
since the September 11 attacks,
some Reagan Doctrine critics have argued that, by facilitating the
transfer of large amounts of weapons to various areas of the world and
by training military leaders in these regions, the Reagan Doctrine
actually contributed to "blowback" by strengthening some political and military movements that ultimately developed hostility toward the United States, such as al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. However, no direct U.S. aid to Osama bin Laden or any of his affiliates has ever been established.
Controversy over Nicaragua
Historian Greg Grandin described a disjuncture between official
ideals preached by the United States and actual U.S. support for
terrorism. "Nicaragua, where the United States backed not a counter
insurgent state but anti-communist mercenaries,
likewise represented a disjuncture between the idealism used to justify
U.S. policy and its support for political terrorism. ... The corollary
to the idealism embraced by the Republicans in the realm of diplomatic
public policy debate was thus political terror. In the dirtiest of Latin
America's dirty wars, their faith in America's mission justified
atrocities in the name of liberty".
Grandin examined the behaviour of the U.S.-backed contras and found
evidence that it was particularly inhumane and vicious: "In Nicaragua,
the U.S.-backed Contras decapitated, castrated, and otherwise mutilated
civilians and foreign aid workers. Some earned a reputation for using
spoons to gouge their victims' eyes out. In one raid, Contras cut the
breasts of a civilian defender to pieces and ripped the flesh off the
bones of another."
Professor Frederick H. Gareau has written that the Contras
"attacked bridges, electric generators, but also state-owned
agricultural cooperatives, rural health clinics, villages, and non-combatants".
U.S. agents were directly involved in the fighting. "CIA commandos
launched a series of sabotage raids on Nicaraguan port facilities. They
mined the country's major ports and set fire to its largest oil storage
facilities." In 1984 the U.S. Congress ordered this intervention to be
stopped; however, it was later shown that the Reagan administration
illegally continued. Gareau has characterized these acts as "wholesale terrorism" by the United States.
A CIA manual for training the Nicaraguan Contras in psychological operations, leaked to the media in 1984, entitled "Psychological Operations in Guerrilla War".
recommended "selective use of violence for propagandistic effects" and
to "neutralize" government officials. Nicaraguan Contras were taught to
lead:
... selective use of armed force
for PSYOP psychological operations effect. ... Carefully selected,
planned targets – judges, police officials, tax collectors, etc. – may
be removed for PSYOP effect in a UWOA unconventional warfare operations
area, but extensive precautions must insure that the people "concur" in
such an act by thorough explanatory canvassing among the affected
populace before and after conduct of the mission.
— James Bovard, Freedom Daily
Similarly, former diplomat Clara Nieto, in her book Masters of War,
charged that "the CIA launched a series of terrorist actions from the
"mothership" off Nicaragua's coast. In September 1983, she charged the
agency attacked Puerto Sandino with rockets. The following month, frogmen
blew up the underwater oil pipeline in the same port – the only one in
the country. In October there was an attack on Puerto Corinto,
Nicaragua's largest port, with mortars, rockets, and grenades blowing up
five large oil and gasoline storage tanks. More than a hundred people
were wounded, and the fierce fire, which could not be brought under
control for two days, forced the evacuation of 23,000 people."
The International Court of Justice, when judging the case of Nicaragua v. United States
in 1984, found that the United States was obligated to pay reparations
to Nicaragua, because it had violated international law by actively
supporting the Contras in their rebellion and by mining the Naval waters
of Nicaragua.
The United States refused to participate in the proceedings after the
Court rejected its argument that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to hear the
case. The U.S. later blocked the enforcement of the judgment by
exercising its veto power in the United Nations Security Council and so prevented Nicaragua from obtaining any actual compensation.
Covert implementation
As
the Reagan administration set about implementing The Heritage
Foundation plan in Afghanistan, Angola, and Nicaragua, it first
attempted to do so covertly, not as part of official policy. "The Reagan
government's initial implementation of the Heritage plan was done
covertly", according to the book Rollback, "following the
longstanding custom that containment can be overt but rollback should be
covert". Ultimately, however, the administration supported the policy
more openly.
Congressional votes
While
the doctrine benefited from strong support from the Reagan
administration, The Heritage Foundation and several influential Members
of Congress, many votes on critical funding for resistance movements,
especially the Nicaraguan contras, were extremely close, making the
Reagan Doctrine one of the more contentious American political issues of
the 1980s.
The Cold War's end
As
arms flowed to the contras, Savimbi's UNITA and the mujahideen, the
Reagan Doctrine's advocates argued that the doctrine was yielding
constructive results for U.S. interests and global democracy.
In Nicaragua, pressure from the Contras led the Sandinstas to end
the State of Emergency, and they subsequently lost the 1990 elections.
In Afghanistan, the mujahideen bled the Soviet Union's military and
paved the way for Soviet military defeat. In Angola, Savimbi's
resistance ultimately led to a decision by the Soviet Union and Cuba to bring their troops and military advisors home from Angola as part of a negotiated settlement.
All of these developments were Reagan Doctrine victories, the doctrine's advocates argue, laying the ground for the ultimate dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Michael Johns later argued that "the Reagan-led effort to support
freedom fighters resisting Soviet oppression led successfully to the
first major military defeat of the Soviet Union ... Sending the Red Army
packing from Afghanistan proved one of the single most important
contributing factors in one of history's most profoundly positive and
important developments".
Thatcher's view
Among others, Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
from 1979 to 1990, credited the Reagan Doctrine with aiding the end of
the Cold War. In December 1997, Thatcher said that the Reagan Doctrine
"proclaimed that the truce with communism was over. The West would
henceforth regard no area of the world as destined to forego its liberty
simply because the Soviets claimed it to be within their sphere of
influence. We would fight a battle of ideas against communism, and we
would give material support to those who fought to recover their nations
from tyranny".
Iran–Contra affair
U.S. funding for the Contras, who opposed the Sandinista
government of Nicaragua, was obtained from covert sources. The U.S.
Congress did not authorize sufficient funds for the Contras' efforts,
and the Boland Amendment barred further funding. In 1986, in an episode that became known as The Iran–Contra affair,
the Reagan administration illegally facilitated the sale of arms to
Iran, the subject of an arms embargo, in the hope that the arms sales
would secure the release of hostages and allow U.S. intelligence
agencies to fund the Nicaraguan Contras.
End
The Reagan Doctrine continued into the administration of Reagan's successor, George H. W. Bush, who won the U.S. presidency in November 1988. Bush's presidency featured the final years of the Cold War and the Gulf War, but the Reagan Doctrine soon faded from U.S. policy as the Cold War ended. Bush also noted a presumed peace dividend to the end of the Cold War with economic benefits of a decrease in defense spending. However, following the presidency of Bill Clinton, a change in United States foreign policy was introduced with the presidency of his son George W. Bush and the new Bush Doctrine, who increased military spending in response to the September 11th attacks.
In Nicaragua, the Contra War
ended after the Sandinista government, facing military and political
pressure, agreed to new elections, in which the contras' political wing
participated, in 1990. In Angola, an agreement in 1989 met Savimbi's
demand for the removal of Soviet, Cuban and other military troops and
advisers from Angola. Also in 1989, in relation to Afghanistan, Soviet
leader Mikhail Gorbachev labeled the war against the U.S.-supported mujahideen a "bleeding wound" and ended the Soviet occupation of the country.
In popular culture
Charlie Wilson's War, a Golden Globe Award and Oscar-nominated Universal Pictures
film released in December 2007, depicts early U.S. efforts to provide
military support to the Afghan mujahideen following the Soviet invasion
of Afghanistan.
Miami, a 1987 book by Joan Didion covers U.S. efforts to overthrow communist governments, including that of Fidel Castro in Cuba.
Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any
outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be
regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of
America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary,
including military force.
Brzezinski modeled the wording on the Truman Doctrine,
and insisted the sentence to be included in the speech "to make it very
clear that the Soviets should stay away from the Persian Gulf."
In The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power, author Daniel Yergin notes that the Carter Doctrine "bore striking similarities" to a 1903 British declaration in which British Foreign SecretaryLord Landsdowne
warned Russia and Germany that the British would "regard the
establishment of a naval base or of a fortified port in the Persian Gulf
by any other power as a very grave menace to British interests, and we
should certainly resist it with all the means at our disposal."
The Persian Gulf region was first proclaimed to be of national interest to the United States during World War II. Petroleum
is centrally important to modern armies. The United States, the world's
leading oil producer at the time, supplied most of the oil for the Allied
armies. Many American strategists were concerned that the war would
dangerously reduce the US's oil supply and so they sought to establish
good relations with Saudi Arabia, a kingdom with large oil reserves. On February 16, 1943, US President Franklin Roosevelt said, "the defense of Saudi Arabia is vital to the defense of the United States."
On February 14, 1945, while he was returning from the Yalta Conference, Roosevelt met with Saudi Arabian King Ibn Saud on the Great Bitter Lake in the Suez Canal, the first time a US president had visited the Persian Gulf region. During Operation Desert Shield in 1990, US Defense SecretaryDick Cheney
cited the landmark meeting between Roosevelt and Ibn Saud as one of the
justifications for sending troops to protect Saudi Arabia's border.
The Persian Gulf region was still regarded as an area of vital importance to the US during the Cold War. Three Cold War American presidential doctrines (the Truman, Eisenhower, and Nixon
Doctrines) played roles in forming the Carter Doctrine. The Truman
Doctrine, which stated that the US would send military aid to countries
threatened by Soviet communism, was used to strengthen both Iran
and Saudi Arabia's security. In October 1950, President Truman wrote to
Ibn Saud that "the United States is interested in the preservation of
the independence and territorial integrity of Saudi Arabia. No threat to
your Kingdom could occur which would not be a matter of immediate
concern to the United States."
The Eisenhower Doctrine called for US troops to be sent to the
Middle East to defend US allies against their Soviet-backed adversaries.
Ultimately, the Nixon Doctrine's application provided military aid to
Iran and Saudi Arabia so that US allies could ensure peace and stability
there. In 1979, the Iranian Revolution and the Soviet intervention of Afghanistan prompted the restatement of US interests in the region in the form of the Carter Doctrine.
In July 1979, responding to a national energy crisis,
President Carter delivered his "Crisis of Confidence" speech, urging
Americans to reduce their energy use to help lessen American dependence
on foreign oil supplies.
Recently, some scholars have claimed that Carter's energy plan, if it
had been fully enacted, would have prevented some of the current
economic difficulties caused by the American dependency on foreign oil.
The doctrine
U.S. President Jimmy Carter
President Carter, in his State of the Union Address on January 23,
1980, after stating that Soviet troops in Afghanistan posed "a grave
threat to the free movement of Middle East oil," proclaimed:
The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in
Afghanistan is of great strategic importance: It contains more than
two-thirds of the world's exportable oil. The Soviet effort to dominate
Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to within 300 miles of
the Indian Ocean and close to the Straits of Hormuz,
a waterway through which most of the world's oil must flow. The Soviet
Union is now attempting to consolidate a strategic position, therefore,
that poses a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil.
This situation demands careful thought, steady nerves, and
resolute action, not only for this year but for many years to come. It
demands collective efforts to meet this new threat to security in the
Persian Gulf and in Southwest Asia. It demands the participation of all
those who rely on oil from the Middle East and who are concerned with
global peace and stability. And it demands consultation and close
cooperation with countries in the area which might be threatened.
Meeting this challenge will take national will, diplomatic and
political wisdom, economic sacrifice, and, of course, military
capability. We must call on the best that is in us to preserve the
security of this crucial region.
Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside
force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an
assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such
an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military
force.
Implementation
The Carter administration began to build up the Rapid Deployment Force, which would eventually become CENTCOM. In the interim, the administration asked Congress to restart Selective Service
registration, proposed a five percent increase in military spending for
each of the next five years, and expanded the US naval presence in the
Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean.
A negative response came from retired strategist George F. Kennan. United States Senator Edward Kennedy
charged that Carter had overreacted, exaggerated the Soviet threat, and
failed to act diplomatically. Kennedy repeated these allegations during
his 1980 Democratic presidential primary bid, in which he was defeated.
Carter's successor, Ronald Reagan,
extended the policy in October 1981 with what is sometimes called the
"Reagan Corollary to the Carter Doctrine," which proclaimed that the
United States would intervene to protect Saudi Arabia, whose security
was believed to be threatened during the Iran–Iraq War. Thus, while the Carter Doctrine warned away outside forces from the region, the Reagan Corollary pledged to secure internal stability. According to diplomat Howard Teicher, "with the enunciation of the Reagan Corollary, the policy groundwork was laid for Operation Desert Storm."
Trend of net energy imports into the United States, 1985–2013
Sources of crude oil imports, 1985–2015
US energy independence is the idea of eliminating the need for the United States to import petroleum and other foreign sources of energy. Energy independence is espoused by those who want to leave the US unaffected by global energy supply disruptions, and to restrict reliance upon politically unstable states for its energy security. Energy independence is highly concerned with oil, the source of the country's principal transport fuels.
In total energy consumption, the US was between 86% and 91% self-sufficient in 2016. In May 2011, the country became a net exporter of refined petroleum products. As of 2014, the United States was the world's third largest producer of crude oil, after Saudi Arabia and Russia, and second-largest exporter of refined products, after Russia.
In November 2019, the United States became a net exporter of all oil
products, including both refined petroleum products and crude oil.
As of March 2015, 85% of crude oil imports came from (in
decreasing volume): Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, and
Colombia. Nineteen percent of imported oil comes from the Middle East. The fraction of crude oil consumed in the US that was imported went from 35% immediately before the 1973 oil crisis, peaked at 60% in 2005, and then returned to 35% by 2013 thanks to increased domestic production from the shale oil boom.
Beginning in the 1970s, exports of crude oil were illegal without a
permit; in 2013, the United States physically exported a relatively
small amount of oil, and only to Canada. The ban was repealed in 2015.
Greater energy self-sufficiency, it was claimed, would prevent major supply disruptions like the 1973 oil crisis and the 1979 energy crisis from recurring. Proponents argue that the potential for political unrest in major oil suppliers, such as Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Nigeria, is abundant, and often causes great fluctuations in crude oil prices (especially in the short term).
Large individual US pipelines and other fuel infrastructure and extraction projects are controversial issues in US politics.
Historical trend
Trend of US net imports (imports minus exports) of natural gas, 1973–2017 (data from US EIA)
In the early 20th century the United States became a major oil supplier to the world. World War II prompted a Synthetic Liquid Fuels Program
but it did not go beyond research. In mid-century the country shifted
from being a major exporter to a net importer. An import quota imposed
in 1959 (during the Dwight D. Eisenhower administration) limited imports
to a fraction of domestic production until 1973. After the 1973 oil crisis, the United States Department of Energy and Synthetic Fuels Corporation were created to address the problem of fuel import dependency.
The US's dependence on foreign oil rose from 26 percent to 47 percent between 1985 and 1989.
According to the Washington & Jefferson College Energy Index, by 2012, American energy independence had decreased by 22% since the Presidency of Harry Truman.
The US's imports of foreign oil fell to 36 percent in 2013 (during the
Barack Obama administration), down from a high of 60 percent in 2006
(during the George W. Bush administration).
Many proponents of energy independence look to the United States'
untapped domestic oil reserves, either known or potential. Those who
favor increasing domestic oil production often suggest removing many of
the limitations on oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (see Arctic Refuge drilling controversy) and the outer continental shelf. Foreign dependence is not the only factor in North American energy politics, however; environmental concerns around land and water pollution and greenhouse gases are also matters of controversy.
Approaches
Some proponents of US energy independence promote wider use of alternatives such as ethanol fuel, methanol, biodiesel, plug-in hybrids and other alternative propulsion. A 2013 report published by the Fuel Freedom Foundation said that without a shift to domestic feedstocks for fuel, such as natural gas and biomass, the US would not be able to achieve energy independence.
As of 2014, the United States imposes an import tariff of 54 cents a
gallon on ethanol fuel (there is no such import tariff on oil or methanol fuel). Ethanol fuel in Brazil is produced from sugarcane, which yields much more fuel per acre than the corn used for ethanol production in the United States.
In the United States, oil is primarily consumed as fuel for cars,
buses, trucks and airplanes (in the form of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel).
Two thirds of US oil consumption is due to the transportation sector. A
national strategy designed to shift all transportation to a combined
use of alternative fuels and plug-in hybrids is predicted to make the US independent of petroleum (oil).
North American energy independence
Oil
imports are most problematic in domestic politics and energy security
when they come from countries that are openly hostile to US foreign policy
and interests (Iran, Venezuela, and formerly Iraq), are former or
potential future rivals (Russia) or have questionable human rights
practices (Saudi Arabia). Sometimes an alternative 'North American energy independence is proposed,
by which North America as a unit should be energy independent, but in
which the US could still import energy from Canada and Mexico, which are
less problematic allies and more tightly economically integrated.
A related, less absolute, policy may be called North American energy security. In 2012 in an editorial to Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail Mexican president elect Enrique Peña Nieto, called North American energy security a "common goal" of Canada and Mexico.
The benefits are argued to be similar to US energy
independence—the reduction of North America's energy dependence on
unstable regions such as the Middle East and South America and accepting
supplies from the reliable North American Free Trade Area, reducing exposure to terrorism abroad; lower balance of trade and foreign exchange stresses on the US economy in an era when suppliers may begin to price oil in euros; the development of renewable energy sources to displace fossil fuels; and the promotion of energy conservation technology exportable to energy-poor nations.
Programs to limit US energy interests by Canada and Mexico
In Canada and Mexico there is also the concern not to have energy
policy dictated by the United States, as well as tension over US
ownership of energy companies.
In 1937 Mexico passed a constitutional amendment to nationalize its oil industry, which led to the creation of Pemex, the national oil company.
There have been several proposals to privatize Pemex since, but they
have never come to fruition as many Mexicans fear foreign control of
this strategic industry.
The 1957 Canadian election was fought partially in response to the 1956 Pipeline Debate which concerned whether or not the government should allow a US-owned company to build a trans-Canadian gas pipeline and whether the route should be entirely within Canada or partly through the United States. The right-leaning Progressive Conservatives and leftist Co-operative Commonwealth Federation
opposition parties opposed American involvement in the pipeline while
the Liberal government supported it. The Liberals were defeated in the
1957 election.
In 1973 Canada created its own state energy company Petro-Canada.
It began operations in 1976, though it bought assets from private
companies rather than seizing them as in many other countries. In 1980
the National Energy Program
was launched to create oil self-sufficiency within Canada. It attempted
to use tax incentives to discourage oil exports (mostly from Western
Canada, primarily the province of Alberta) to the US, and redirect these towards to the oil importing provinces of Eastern Canada. The Foreign Investment Review Agency
was also created to screen foreign (mostly US) takeovers of Canadian
companies. These policies were bitterly opposed by the provincial
government of Alberta, and were repealed and reversed during the
Conservative government of 1984–1993 which sought closer economic ties
with the US, including the Canada–US Free Trade Agreement of 1988.
U.S. Presidential views
Carter Administration
In his Malaise speech, President Jimmy Carter declared that the United States will never again import as much oil as it did in 1977 (Carter).
Bush Administration
In his 2006 State of the Union Address, President George W. Bush used the phrase addicted to oil, a phrase widely discussed in the media.
Oil imports into the US peaked in 2006, when imports supplied nearly 12
million barrels/day which is 60% of US consumption; they have declined
since, due both to increased domestic oil production, and reduced
consumption.
Obama administration
In 2011, President Barack Obama released his Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future
that aimed to reduce oil dependence by a third, by producing more oil
at domestically, increasing use of cleaner alternative fuels, and
greater efficiency.
Obama stated "the fact of the matter is, is that for quite some time,
America is going to be still dependent on oil in making its economy
work."
In 2012, Obama repeatedly stated that the US had begun "freeing ourselves from foreign oil." Canadian observers noted that his usage of "foreign" did not include Canada. Obama called Canada and Mexico "stable" foreign energy suppliers.
Keystone XL Pipeline - Obama vs. Trump
The Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta to the Gulf Coast
would expedite processing of Canadian oil. In November 2015, Obama
rejected the proposal to build this pipeline because of domestic
environmental concerns over water quality as well as the general
antipathy of the environmental movement to pipeline building, and the production practices in the source (the Athabasca oil sands).
In March 2017, President Donald J. Trump announced the granting of a permit for construction of the Keystone XL
pipeline, calling it "the first of many infrastructure projects" that
he intended to approve in order to put more Americans to work. The
permitting came two months after Trump, only days into his presidency,
signed an executive order aimed at reviving the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines.
Trump administration
In May 2017, President Donald J. Trump promised "complete" independence from foreign sources of oil.
During his administration's Energy Week celebration of
June 2017, President Trump announced that he was formally seeking a
review of US energy policies, in order to help the Nuclear power industry prosper. Trump also announced that the Interior Department
would be kicking off the formal process to expand areas available for
offshore drilling of oil and natural gas. He vowed to create "American
energy dominance".
In May 2018, it was reported that US liquefied natural gas (LNG)
exports had quadrupled. The value of US LNG exports was estimated to
reach nearly $5 billion in 2018 and $12 billion in 2019.
In early December 2018, it was reported that the US had turned
into a net exporter of oil "last week", thus breaking nearly 75
continuous years of dependence on foreign oil. Reportedly, the US sold
overseas a net of 211,000 barrels a day of crude and refined products
such as gasoline and diesel. This, compared to net imports of about
three million barrels a day on average previously during 2018 and the
prior annual peak of more than 12 million barrels a day during 2005, was
confirmed by the US Energy Information Administration.
In March 2019, crude oil prices regained momentum after reports showed an unexpected drop in US fuel supplies. The American Petroleum Institute
reported domestic crude inventories declined 2.58 million barrels the
previous week. The US Energy Information Administration was due to
report on the official numbers on domestic supply and demand. However,
James Williams, president at WTRG Economics in London, Arkansas said,
"These are clearly bullish numbers, and if reinforced it will be more
bullish".
Benefits of oil dependence
In a 2012 poll of energy experts by Foreign Policy magazine, almost two-thirds of respondents said energy independence was not a sensible goal.
Highlighting the difficulty of separating domestic and foreign
oil sources, journalist Robert Bryce stated in 2008 that "the trends of
energy interdependence are growing and are inexorable" and branded the
idea of being able to choose where your oil came from as "hogwash".
The structure of the argument of critics is arranged as follows:
Energy independence will not decrease US involvement in the Middle East.
Interests in the Persian Gulf, including the protection of worldwide energy security upon which the global economy is dependent, will remain a US priority.
Terrorism will not decline in the Middle East if the US ceases to buy oil, because terrorism is not funded by oil money.
Although vast oil supplies are found in an unstable region subject to difficult geopolitics, these geopolitics
will continue to be fueled by other large consumers of oil, such as
China, whether or not the US achieves energy independence. US energy
independence will not cause a US pull-out from the Middle East, it will
not decrease terrorism, and it will not foster stability or reform in
the region.
Renewable energy sources can be extremely inefficient, as in the
case of corn-based biofuels, which requires massive government subsidies
and also enormous amounts of water and chemicals to grow, and causes
significant air pollution when burned. Other renewables, namely wind
and solar power, are expensive and intermittent, and lack the
infrastructure and technology needed to properly store the energy they
harness from the environment:
Natural gas was not a viable portion of US energy as of 2008,
since we may have peaked in domestic reserves: US imports of natural gas
from Canada tripled since 1973.
However, US gross natural gas production set new all-time record
highs each year from 2007 through 2013, due in part to new methods to
extract Shale gas. Despite record withdrawals, the volume of US proved reserves
still in the ground also stands at an all-time high, according to
reserve data for the end of 2011. US net imports of natural gas peaked
in 2007, then declined rapidly, and in 2013 were 60 percent below 2007.
In the absence of breeder reactors or fusion reactors,
nuclear power plants aren't a solution to energy independence either,
since uranium must be imported: currently, 80% of US uranium is
imported, mainly from Russia and Canada.
Although the US enjoys massive coal reserves able to power the country at current rates of energy consumption for 200 years,
the hope that the country could use this resource as a liquid to fuel
the transportation sector is unlikely. Although currently the US remains
a net coal exporter of lower-quality coal, a large and, as of 2008,
increasing portion of coal is being imported due to the cheaper,
high-quality, low-sulfur foreign coal needed by power plants coping with
air-quality regulations.
However, from 2007 to 2011, US coal imports fell by 64%, and
coal exports rose by 81%. As of 2011, coal exports from the US were
eight times the tonnage of imports, and the US was the world's
fourth-largest exporter of coal.
US oil reserves cannot be relied upon: US oil production in 2008 had been steadily declining since 1970.
From that point, US oil production rose rapidly during
2009–2013; US crude oil production for 2013 was 49% higher than that of
2008.
In 2008, Roger Howard has argued in The Wall Street Journal
that oil dependence has significant benefits for the US and other
oil-importing nations. First, the world's major oil exporters are highly
dependent on their oil revenues, and fear rapid drops in the price of oil,
such as occurred in late 2008 and in 2014/2015. Second, this fear
restrains destructive actions by exporters: Howard cites the example of
Russia's 2008 invasion of Georgia.
Russia's stock market plunged, and "within a week capital outflow
reached a massive $16 billion, suddenly squeezing domestic credit while
the ruble collapsed in value." He also gives the example of Libya, where Muammar al-Gaddafi gave up his nuclear weapon program in exchange for the US lifting its economic sanctions, which had prevented Libya from increasing its oil production.
In 2008, Andy Grove argued that energy independence is a flawed and infeasible objective, particularly in a network of integrated global exchange. He suggests instead that the objective should be energy resilience: resilience goes hand in hand with adaptability, and it also is reflected in important market ideas like substitutability. Resilience is one of the best features of market processes;
the information transmission function of prices means that individual
buyers and sellers can adapt to changes in supply and demand conditions
in a decentralized way. His suggestion for how to increase the resilience of the US energy economy is to shift use from petroleum to electricity (electrification), that can be produced using multiple sources of energy, including renewables.
Canada is the world's second largest producer of hydroelectricity
(after China) and exported three billion dollars worth of electricity
to the US in 2015, mostly from the major hydro-producing provinces of
Québec, Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia.
.gif)
_(44637262144).png)
