The Meaning of Power
The instrumental character of power is that of a “means to an end.” It includes the tools, resources, and abilities used to pursue goals. The meaning of power and its role in politics is understood first with a background of its dual nature.
De jure refers to the theory of power. The concept of “absolute power,” considers tangible factors. When comparing nations’ power, money and gross national product are units of measure; the United States is more powerful than Mexico. Army size and strength are also measurable. World powers, such as the U.S., Britain, and Japan, defeat countries with smaller, weaker armies. From an objective standpoint, tangible assets make a country a world
…show more content…
The U.S. has power, as mentioned before, and credibility based on its world power status. OPEC’s response will be based on this credibility along with the U.S.’s capability.
What the United States has and can do reestablishes the country’s de jure power. OPEC’s oil-producing countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Iraq, know the U.S. has a strong army. But they do not know the U.S.’s plan for using this power. The U.S. could decide to use the army, as a form of physical power if the request is denied. Or, the country could use economic power, in the form of trade restrictions. The percentage of power the U.S. utilizes depends on intention.
The importance of the country’s goals determines the United States’ intention to obtain more oil. Is this a strong intention, requiring one-hundred percent effort and power? Oil is vital to the U.S., in its industries and to its people, for their economic and personal needs. The more necessary oil is for the U.S. to achieve its goals in these areas, the more power will be utilized to get the oil. The contending party, the OPEC nations, is the outside factor in this political situation. The ways in which the United States pursues this issue may include up to eight manifestations of power.
It is best to use the less extreme measure of bargaining first. The United States may trade or provide aid to foreign countries to get the oil. Authority, the U.S.’s power of position, or prestige, the power of
foreign policy in the Middle East and the oceans of crude oil that lie beneath the region's soil. Klare traces oil's impact on international affairs since World War II, revealing its influence on the Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, and Carter doctrines. He shows how America's own wells are drying up as our demand increases; by 2010, the United States will need to import sixty percent of its oil. Since most of this supply will have to come from violently anti-American zones, our dependency is bound to lead to recurrent military involvement. "Ultimately, the cost of oil will be measured in blood: the blood of American soldiers who die in combat, the blood of the many other casualties of oil-related violence, including the victims of terrorism."
Oil has often been referred to as any economy’s lifeblood. Although this is an overemphasis, oil has been the key, nonhuman resource of the economy throughout the largest part of the 20th century. In the book “The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, And Power” by Daniel Yergin, the author illustrates the political, societal, economic, and geo-strategic importance of this product.
Hard power and soft power are important factors when it comes to our nation and its role throughout the world. The differences between hard and soft power offer people a better insight when it comes to political power in our nation. Hard power deals with the aspect of changing the actions of others through things such as coercion; whereas, soft power deals with attraction and shaping what others want from a different perspective (Smith-Windsor, 52). These versions of power are crucial when it comes to the theory of international relations. A hypothesis that alliances are founded on calculations of national interest and do not withstand a conflict of those interests is christened “theory” in the current language of political science (Aron,
Several oil-countries have been facing economic and political turbulence as a result of the crash in oil prices, and there is disagreement among OPEC as how to handle the situation. (Krauss) While this is happening, America’s oil production continues to rise, as it inches closer to becoming an energy superpower in production and consumption; and countries that depend on their oil exports face recession.
President Theodore Roosevelt, well known for his extraordinary, worldly diplomatic skills, was quoted as saying, “Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far.” During the early twentieth century, he brandished that big stick, or convincingly threatened to, with remarkable efficacy in support of his country’s political objectives. The big stick that President Roosevelt carried with him as a diplomat and Commander in Chief was the superior power of the United States military. “Historically, power has been measured by such criteria as population size and territory, natural resources, economic strength, military force, and social stability. Hard power enables countries to wield carrots and sticks to get what they want.”1 Power, a nation’s ability to influence other states to achieve a desired outcome, manifests in numerous different forms or elements within a state. Powerful states strive to employ all the elements of power, including diplomacy, information, economic, cultural, and most importantly military to further their national objectives. Although a reasonable person might expect that a militarily powerful state routinely triumphs over the weaker state in matters of war, superior military power only guarantees a victory on paper, not in any real war. This paper will show that when one considers a state’s relative military power, weaker states are capable of defeating more powerful states that struggle to formulate
Two-thirds of the world’s remaining oil reserves are in the Middle East which will make international policy imperative in the future (Campbell 2007). It is
issue. The government is constantly trying to find any solution and investing in technologies to
The debate on American power is a complex, yet interesting argument. This essay will discuss and define power through American military and economic aspects. These are key elements that define how much power a nation holds, as military and economic superiority allows a state to intimidate, persuade, and facilitate its own agenda. Both Cox and Williams have argued the debate on US power, and therefore their work features in this essay. I will discuss both articles in depth before coming to the conclusion that American power is in decline, and has been since 1991 at the end of the Cold War.
Middle East is strategically important region where mostly world half of oil reserves are located. Three countries: Saudi Arabia, Iran and United Arab Emirates accounted for 57% of total Middle East liquids fuels production. (Liquid fuels production in Middle Eastern and North African countries n.d.) Although due to increased domestic production of petroleum and natural gas, the United States is reducing its dependence on foreign oil with imported liquid fuels, but still oil means a lot to the US as oil prices is determined internationally by what is available for all global consumers. Therefore, to safeguard the security of Oil supply in the Middle East and ensure stable access to affordable oil is in the vital interest of the America. (Mexican crude oil shipments to Europe and Asia are rising as U.S. imports fall
In 1973, in the wake of conflict in the Middle East, US drivers were feeling the repercussions with every gallon of gasoline and oil that they consumed. The members of OPEC placed an oil embargo on the US and several other nations because of their aid to the Israeli military. This embargo greatly pressured the US, who was highly dependent on foreign oil. In the aftermath of this crisis, President Nixon called for the increased energy production to avoid this problem in the future. Yet, in this present day, the United States faces a similar, although not as extreme, situation. Measures must be made to make the United States energy independent.
The debate over America power is one that is extremely relevant today, especially following this month’s revelation by the International Monetary Fund that China has just overtaken the US as the world’s biggest economy (Fray 2014). The two articles, ‘Is the United States in decline—again?’ (Cox 2007, pp. 643–653) and ‘The empire writes back’ (Williams 2007, pp. 945-950), take very different views on the state of America’s influence in the world today. Realists believe that the world is an anarchical environment, and states – who are the only actors – are all self-interested and driven by power. Cox takes this realist approach in his article, arguing that power is necessary for security and highlighting absolute power that includes factors such as military, economic and cultural indicators. In contrast, M. J. Williams’ response to Cox takes a very different view to the debate over American decline by dismissing realism as an inadequate and irrelevant policy-making device and instead concentrating on the importance of an interdependent international system, emphasising the value of relative power among states. Although the debate over American decline is polarising, it is clear that America is still the most dominant force in today’s world and hasn’t lost any significant amount of power. Broadly summarising the two articles, Cox believes decline is on-going in the U.S. today and has been for the past four decades. Whereas, Williams is of the
President of the United States Theodore Roosevelt, well known for his impressive diplomatic skills, was quoted as saying, “Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far.” He wielded that big stick, or convincingly threatened to, with remarkable efficacy during the early twentieth century. The big stick that President Roosevelt carried with him was the superior muscle power of the United States military. “Historically, power has been measured by such criteria as population size and territory, natural resources, economic strength, military force, and social stability. Hard power enables countries to wield carrots and sticks to get what they want.”1 Power, a nations ability to influence other states to achieve a desired outcome, manifests in numerous different forms within the state. Powerful states employ all the elements of power to include diplomacy, information, economic, cultural, and of course military to meet their national objectives. Although one might expect that militarily powerful states regularly triumph over weaker states in matters of war, superior military power does not guarantee a victory. This paper will show that states possessing weaker military power are capable of defeating militarily superior states that struggle to formulate sound military strategies for their armies, fail to generate the required military effectiveness on the battlefield, or cannot overcome the unpredictability of war.
Oil has repeatedly been referred to as any economy’s lifeblood. Whereas this is an overemphasis, oil has been the utmost key, nonhuman resource of economy throughout the largest part of the 20th century. In the book “The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, And Power” by Daniel Yergin, the author illustrates the political, societal, economic, and geo-strategic prominence of this product. The book was published by Simon and Schuster in 2011 in New York, and contains 928 pages, as its ISBN is 1439134839. This research paper aims to provide a book review on Daniel Yergin’s “The Prize.”
Firstly, the future world globalization provides a challenge in U.S. foreign policy in striking a balance between its domestic need and foreign policy. This conflict is visible in its aspiration to be energy independent while at the same time working with other countries to mitigate the effect of climate change. The U.S. has been dependent on the middle for its source of oil; about 17 percent of U.S. oil imports come from
In the early 1990s, Joseph Nye’s book Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature Of American Power ignited a huge discussion among society of the need to transition from America’s traditional use of hard power to something more benign which he termed soft power. Before looking at the two branches of power, we first define power as the ability to do something or act in a certain way. As Nye had pointed out, nations can wield power in two forms, soft and hard power. Soft power, as coined by Nye (1990) is defined as “the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than through coercion.” In contrast, hard power is seen as the use of military might or economic sanctions to coerce others into