US National Security Strategy and Energy

Shift from Oil Supply Security Concerns to American Energy Dominance Concept

Under the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Department Reorganization Act of 1986, the President must submit a report on the national security strategy of the United States to Congress each year. Especially in recent years, however, these reports have been made late or not at all. 

A strategy is just a piece of paper until it is operationalized in policies. On the other hand, the National Security Strategy of the US governments gives us a baseline to judge the Administrations’ priorities and later the performance going forward.

I read all sixteen National Security Strategy (NSS) papers of the US governments released since 1987, two of which in 2010 and 2015 during Barack Obama’s eight-year at the office, and the last one in December 2017 by the Trump Administration. 

There are various discussions that Trump Administration’s NSS released in December 2017 can be readily distinguished from many aspects including but not limited to international relations and global economic issues, from previous ones. Here, however, I will underline the main takeaways of U.S. national security strategy documents in terms of energy and climate issues only and compare the Trump Administration’s NSS to its earlier versions accordingly.

What’s more important for me while I was reading these reports that I realized I’m actually reading and somehow witnessing the fundamental shift that the US has undergone in terms of its national energy strategy in the last three decades. For some of you, therefore, I believe I may shed light on the American energy revolution in the last thirty years. 

Firstly, all US governments underline the importance of energy security in terms of their national security strategies except the Trump Administration. The Trump Administration’s NSS talks about another concept, “energy dominance”. 

Energy dominance is explained in the 2017 NSS of the Trump Administration as America’s central position in the global energy system as a leading producer, consumer, and innovator. While the Obama Administration stated in 2015 in its NSS that “We (the U.S.) are demonstrating that America can and will lead the global economy while reducing our emissions”, the Trump Administration argues in 2017 NSS that “the U.S. energy dominance will ensure that markets are free and U.S. infrastructure is resilient and secure.” 

Ronald Reagan Administration (1987 and 1988)

The Role of IEA for the U.S. Oil Supply Security

The first NSS released in 1987 by Ronald Reagan Administration underlines the role of the International Energy Agency (IEA) for reducing dependence among member countries on insecure energy supplies. The document also mentions that “ The Soviets attempt to obtain long-term economic agreements which build relationships of dependency on the USSR (e.g.,those relating to the supply of energy resources to Western Europe).”

The second NSS released in 1988 by Ronald Reagan Administration also attaches importance to the IEA for assisting member countries to ensure “adequate supplies of energy at reasonable prices by strengthening domestic energy industries, diversifying energy sources, and improving energy efficiency”. The 1988 NSS points out that the U.S. is “working through the International Energy Agency to assist our allies to develop complementary strategies. … promoting international cooperation with allies and partners in the International Energy Agency.” “Working through the International Energy Agency, we and our allies have reduced the substantial risk of Western European dependence on Soviet energy”, underlines the 1988 NSS.

Father Bush Administration (1989-1993)

The Middle East, The Middle East, The Middle East

A separate sub-chapter is given to energy in a national security strategy document of a U.S. government. 1990 NSS released by George H. W. Bush Administration under the chapter “Relating Means to Ends: Our Economic Agenda” reads “The concentration of 65 percent of the world's known oil reserves in the Persian Gulf means we must continue to ensure reliable access to competitively priced oil and a prompt, adequate response to any major oil supply disruption.” Moreover, while not mentioning the climate change, the 1990 NSS talks about the fossil fuel emissions for the first time, “… we must devote greater attention to reducing fossil fuel emissions in light of growing environmental concerns.” 

“The free world's reliance on energy supplies from this pivotal region and our strong ties with many of the region's countries continue to constitute important interests of the United States. … Religious fanaticism may continue to endanger American lives, or countries friendly to us in the Middle East, on whose energy resources the free world continues to depend.” also interestingly state the 1990 NSS released by George H. W. Bush Administration.

The 1991 NSS released by George H. W. Bush Administration clearly underlines the importance of oil demand and the stability of the Gulf region for the U.S. national security strategy. 

The paper states “For the foreseeable future, oil will remain a vital element in our energy mix. For geological and economic reasons, U.S. oil imports are likely to increase in coming years. Security of oil supplies is enhanced by a supportive foreign policy and appropriate military capabilities. … We will also maintain our capability to respond to requests to protect vital oil facilities, on land or at sea, while working to resolve the underlying political, social and economic tensions that could threaten the free flow of oil. The stability of the Gulf region, which contains two-thirds of the world's known oil reserves, is of fundamental concern to us. Political and military turbulence in the region has a direct impact on our economy, largely through higher oil prices and potential supply disruptions. Diversification of both productive and spare capacity is important to providing a cushion to the oil market. … The aftermath of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait demonstrates the need to improve strategic stock levels within oil-consuming countries and the value of international cooperation to help mitigate damage brought about by sudden, serious disruptions of supply”.

For the first time, climate change is mentioned in a national security strategy document of a U.S. government. The 1991 NSS released by George H. W. Bush Administration under a separate sub-chapter titled “Environment” reads “Global environmental concerns include such diverse but interrelated issues as stratospheric ozone depletion, climate change, food security, water supply, deforestation, biodiversity and treatment of wastes. … Recognizing a shared responsibility for global stewardship is a necessary step for global progress. Our partners will find the United States a ready and active participant in this effort.”

Interestingly, although there is a sub-chapter for environment, energy is barely mentioned in five different paragraphs in 21-page NSS document released by George H. W. Bush Administration in 1993 at the last year of his term of office. One can understand why is that when you read a paragraph in 1993 NSS, “Most recently, our commitment and leadership in the Gulf War sustained the confidence and respect of the world. More than half a million men and women of our armed forces helped carry out an historic campaign to liberate Kuwait and stop Saddam Hussein from dominating the region and essentially controlling global energy resources”. It is more interesting to see the verb choice for Saddam’s position in the region, “domination”.

Clinton Administration (1994-2001)

Collapse of the Soviet Empire and the Emergence of New Democracies

While only two NSS documents were released (in 2010 and 2015) during the eight-year term of Obama at the office between 2009 and 2016, the Clinton Administration released seven NSS documents between 1994 and 2001 with the exception in 1999.  

All of the seven NSS documents released between 1994 and 2001 by the Clinton Administration focuses on the US dependence on imported oil. “The United States depends on oil for about 40% of its primary energy needs, and roughly half of our oil needs are met with imports.” 

Whereas NSS documents released between 1994 and 1997 by the Clinton Administration considers energy security of the U.S. simply as the oil supply security, the 1998 NSS talks about “the oil and gas fields of the Caucasus and Central Asia become reliable energy sources.” and underlines the importance of the Caspian Region in terms of the U.S. undergoing a fundamental shift away from reliance on Middle East oil sources. In line with this policy shift, the natural gas is mentioned for the first time in a NSS document in 1997. “A stable and prosperous Caucasus and Central Asia will help promote stability and security from the Mediterranean to China and facilitate rapid development and transport to international markets of the large Caspian oil and gas resources, with substantial U.S. commercial participation.” 

The 2000 NSS document released by the Clinton Administration states “We (the U.S.) are focusing particular attention on investment in Caspian energy resources and their export from the Caucasus region to world markets, thereby expanding and diversifying world energy supplies and promoting prosperity in the region. A stable and prosperous Caucasus and Central Asia will facilitate rapid development and transport to international markets of the large Caspian oil and gas resources, with substantial U.S. commercial participation. … Development of Caspian energy resources will improve our energy security, as well as that of Turkey and other allies. It will create commercial opportunities for U.S. companies and other companies around the world. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline is also the most environmentally sound approach to transporting oil resources from the Caspian region to world markets.”

The document also states that “Decisions today regarding the environment and natural resources can affect our security for generations” and “We (the U.S.) have a full diplomatic agenda to respond aggressively to environmental threats.” 

Jr. Bush Administration (2002-2008)

America is at War

The 2002 NSS document released by the George W. Bush Administration sets an objective to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions relative to the size of its economy, cutting such emissions per unit of economic activity by 18 percent over the next 10 years, by the year 2012.

It is quite interesting and ironic to see today that the George W. Bush Administration underlined the importance of increasing spending on research and new conservation technologies, to a total of $4.5 billion—the largest sum being spent on climate change by any country in the world and a $700 million increase over last year’s budget to attain this goal. It is also ironic, however, that there is not any single reference to the issue of climate change in 2006 NSS document of the George W. Bush Administration. 

America is at war. This is the very first sentence of the 2006 NSS document released by the George W. Bush Administration. The document points out that the global economy has a oil dependency, only small number of countries make major contributions to the world’s oil supply and the world’s dependence on these few suppliers is neither responsible nor sustainable over the long term.

The document further argues that the key to ensuring the U.S. energy security is diversity in the regions from which energy resources come and in the types of energy resources on which we rely. As for diversification, two main suggestions are made in the document, both of which proved to be failures in the following decades, “Global Nuclear Energy Partnership” (GNEP) initiative and transformational technologies such as clean coal and hydrogen. According to the document, GNEP would help other nations to develop and deploy advanced nuclear recycling and reactor technologies, which will help provide reliable, emission-free energy with less of the waste burden of older technologies and without making available separated plutonium that could be used by rogue states or terrorists for nuclear weapons. The document goes on to say that these new technologies will make possible a dramatic expansion of safe, clean nuclear energy to help meet the growing global energy demand.

The objective of the GNEP, which George W. Bush unveiled in 2006 was to enable the global expansion of nuclear energy while limiting the spread of uranium enrichment and reprocessing technologies. 

Obama Administration (2009-2016)

The Change in the Global Energy Market

The Obama Administration released only two NSS documents during the eight year term of office of Obama, in 2010 and 2015. 

There are twenty-eight references to the climate change in the first NSS document released by the Obama Administration in 2010. Moreover, climate change is described as a common challenge and as an issue that challenge all nations, but that no one nation alone can meet. The document reads “The danger from climate change is real, urgent, and severe.”

The Obama Administration like the previous U.S. Administrations admits that the U.S. economy is dependent on fossil fuels, but unlike the George H. W. Bush or George W. Bush Administrations, a different solution is suggested: transforming the U.S. Energy Economy to ensure the security and free flow of global energy resources. The document further argues that the “U.S. must transform the way that the U.S. uses energy—diversifying supplies, investing in innovation, and deploying clean energy technologies and that by doing so, the U.S. will enhance energy security, create jobs, and fight climate change.”

The second NSS released by the Obama Administration in 2015, states that five transitions, in particular, have significantly changed the security landscape, including since our last strategy in 2010. Among these five transitions, the change in the global energy market is given. The document states “The United States is now the world’s largest natural gas and oil producer. Our dependence on foreign oil is at a 20-year low—and declining—and we are leading a new clean energy economy. While production in the Middle East and elsewhere remains vitally important for the global market, increased U.S. production is helping keep markets well-supplied and prices conducive to economic growth. On the other hand, energy security concerns have been exacerbated by European dependence on Russian natural gas and the willingness of Russia to use energy for political ends. At the same time, developing countries now consume more energy than developed ones, which is altering energy flows and changing consumer relationships.”

Trump Administration (2017)

Energy Dominance

Trump argues that the true threat to national security is not climate change but regulations that get in the way of U.S. economic and energy dominance. Trump introduced his first NSS in December 2017, in which he broke from the Obama Administration in not listing climate change as a major threat. 56-page security strategy has a section titled “Embrace Energy Dominance” which dealt with energy and climate issues. “U.S. leadership is indispensable to countering an anti-growth energy agenda that is detrimental to U.S. economic and energy security interests”, the strategy document reads. 

The Trump Administration’s 2017 NSS document mentions climate change only once. The mention comes in the section focused on efforts to make the U.S. a global energy powerhouse by producing and exporting more fossil fuels, the source of most planet-warming emissions. Trump’s security strategy suggests that global efforts to fight climate change may be an obstacle to the U.S. interests. 

In some ways, the U.S. military and national security establishments have been on the forefront of climate science and adaptation. This makes sense. Many military installations are located on the coast, directly in harm's way as sea level rise accelerates. Deborah Sivas from Stanford University argues that we are likely to see new international tension and conflicts, especially between Russia and the U.S., as melting ice opens new shipping passages in the Arctic; the ability of Russian and other military vessels to expand their presence to North America is troubling for U.S. national security.

Houston is the energy capital of the world. So, let′s see what Chris Tomlinson from “Houston Chronicle” has said in his latest analysis: “The Department of Defense, Wall Street, credit rating agencies, energy producers, insurance companies and every national leader, except President Donald Trump, recognize climate change as the biggest threat to the world's economy over the next century.”

What will Trump Administration mean for energy? Much has been said on this topic, but I want to quote from Jason Bardoff, Professor and Founding Director, Center on Global Energy Policy, Columbia University, former White House energy advisor to President Obama. His analysis on what to expect from the Trump Administration in terms of energy in 2018 actually does shed light on the Administration's energy strategy for the entire term of office of the President Trump.

"... the effects of Trump's "America First" economic nationalism—from abandoning trade and economic pacts to withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement—will continue to ripple through energy markets in 2018... Market forces will matter far more to the outlook for US production and exports in 2018 than the Trump administration's deregulatory measures and push for "energy dominance". But other US domestic and foreign policy shifts may create uncertainty and volatility in the year ahead. There's nothing new about geopolitical risk to the energy sector. What's new for 2018 is how much of that risk now emanates from Washington DC."

Different Presidents with Different Energy Strategies

Evolution of the American Energy Security Perception

In conclusion, I aimed to underline main energy and climate takeaways of U.S. national security strategy documents and to compare the Trump Administration’s NSS to its earlier versions with a focus on energy and climate.

I tried to give a summary on different energy strategies of each President. Various dramatic changes have taken place in the US energy sector over the past thirty years. I hope I could shed some light on the perception of energy security evolved in the U.S. and the fundamental shift that the US has undergone in terms of its national energy strategy in the last three decades.

P.S. I would be happy if you could kindly leave your comments and views below so that the discussion can be enriched.