The Philippines and Russia (original) (raw)
Related papers
Perspectives on Energy Geopolitics: Who will be the Leader: the US, Russia, the EU, China or Japan ?
IEEJ Energy Journal, pp. 17-20 , 2018
What has changed? The global energy landscape has been undergoing serious changes in the fifty years following the creation of OPEC and the subsequent collapse of the USSR. We can identify several key directions in this profound transformation. 1. "Energy transition" The policy of switching to "new energy" is playing an increasingly important role not only in the developed world but also in the developing countries. This includes the growing role of low-carbon energy sources-primarily local RES, a specific focus on energy efficiency and optimization of energy systems due to digitalization. The initial outcomes of this policy are already apparent: slowing energy consumption growth rates (and in some countries, an absolute reduction in energy consumption volumes) and a gradual slowdown in fossil fuel demand growth rates. International oil and gas companies are reviewing their strategies and investment priorities, increasingly moving into natural gas business and growing their presence in the renewable energy sector. Most Western investment funds and financial institutions are following the same paradigm. As a result, investment in hydrocarbon projects is progressively being made by national oil and gas companies and national investment funds. At the same time, "Energy Transition" is aimed primarily at supporting local energy resources, the development of which reduces import dependency and thus lowers the risks associated with energy geopolitics. 2. The transformation of the US from an oil and gas net importer into the largest producer and exporter. The Shale Revolution had enormous consequences for the whole alignment of power in the global energy arena. From the geopolitical point of view, it did not just lead to a decrease in the US dependence on hydrocarbon imports from the Middle East (and, consequently, to a clear decline in attention to this extremely controversial and sensitive region), but also made the US and Russia direct competitors both in the global oil market and in all major regional gas markets, for the first time in history. The US gained an additional strategic advantage over the EU countries as it had access to cheap hydrocarbons, and, moreover, for the first time in history began to position itself as a potential supplier of petroleum products and LNG to Europe.
Journal of Global Policy and Governance, 2013
The article intends to identify and explain possible geopolitical implications for the main energy actors of the new developments on global energy markets and the effect on their foreign policy. To this end, a comparative analysis is provided, including Russia, United States, China and Qatar case studies. Authors examine the international activity of these states with special focus on the process of power shifts between them, their possible alliances and emerging interdependencies. The findings consist of a set of indications regarding direction and strength of geopolitical implications for each country (strong, moderate, negative and positive), foreign policy preferences (enhancement of energy security, maintaining its current position on the energy market or empowering of the state based on controlling supplies or transit of energy resources) and foreign policy strategy (expansive or conservative and offensive or defensive).
Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 2024
The question of why some regions reject energy cooperation initiatives that aim to improve their overall security of supply puzzles scholars and policymakers advocating for deeper regional integration through energy trade. This was the case in Northeast Asia, where efforts to create a joint oil import mechanism to improve China, South Korea and Japan's collective bargaining power against Middle East suppliers repeatedly failed and turned instead into competing bilateral contracts at higher prices for all three countries. This article offers two explanations for this puzzle. First, the unique technical challenges and costly logistics of establishing reliable oil and gas supply routes make bilateral agreements more credible than multilateral guarantees in regions characterised by geographical remoteness and high differential vulnerability to disruptions among its members. Second, the tendency of policymakers to securitise their country's energy supply pushes them to overemphasise their relative vulnerabilities and fear any loss of autonomy over their supplies.
A Crude Bargain: Great Powers, Oil States, and Petro-Alignment
Security Studies, 2019
Petro-alignment, a quid pro quo arrangement whereby great powers offer security in exchange for oil states’ friendly oil policies, is a widely used and yet undertheorized energy security strategy. One consequential aspect of this exchange is that great powers choose different levels of security commitment to keep oil producers friendly. With what criteria do great powers rank oil states? How do we conceptualize different types of petro-alignments? What exactly do great powers and oil producers exchange under each petro-alignment type? I posit that a mix of market power and geostrategic location determines the strategic value and vulnerability of individual client oil states, which then generates four corresponding types of petro-alignment—security guarantee, strategic alignment, strategic favor, and neglect. Two carefully selected case comparisons—Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in 1970–91, and Azerbaijan and Ecuador in 1990–2013—show how great powers created, utilized, and maintained petro-alignments under the unique logic of oil markets and across varying geopolitical settings. The findings have important implications on great powers’ grand strategies, strategic behaviors of oil states, and the role of oil in international security.
In this paper, I argue that economic interventions have an effect on the identity of both the benefactor and the benefactee. Using the example of the United States and the Philippines, the essay investigates the Bell Trade Act of 1946 and the Bell economic mission of 1950, and how it negated both the decolonization of the islands and their newly-won sovereignty. In the first section, I explore the empirical referent itself, looking at the Bell economic mission as part of the colonized past, and what it says about the identity of the US in relationship to the Philippines. In the second section, I deconstruct the identity of the US in relation to colonialism and the imperialist nature of the Trade Act and economic mission. In the third section, I explore the impact of the economic intervention on the cultural identity of the Philippines, especially with regard to the hierarchical nature of the islands. In the conclusion, I briefly touch on how the foreign aid affected the future of the Philippines from the 1950's on, and what this case study can tell us about economic interventions and identity today. ______________________________________________________________________________ Empirically, it is obvious that foreign economic aid impacts both the benefactor and benefactee; in terms of the tangible result, money shifts from one country's coffers and is injected into another. However, this is not a simple market relationship in the same way that trade transactions are, as foreign aid can cause an even bigger and long-lasting impact than just a jump in the economy; it also influences the identities of both nations involved. The Bell Trade Act and economic mission in the Philippines following WWII reveal this impact. I argue that the