The idea that a nation-state’s domestic and global economy and political dynamism calibrates upon the strength and independence of its ability to be self-sufficient amongst other nations is the immediate cornerstone that outlines the best foundation of its foreign policy. That said, it important to underscore that the United States of America can have a foreign policy that is either, (1) completely independent of having to make allowances unto other nation-states that it exports goods and natural resources unto (i.e.: oil and precious metals), (2) an economic hybrid of national self-sufficiency interdependent with other nation-states for the trade of goods and natural resources, or, (3) having a global need to import all of its requirements with the purchase and importation of traded goods and natural resources.
At this present time, the foreign policy of the United States of America is in the second tier, with an instrumentality of the offices of administrative national government pushing it closer to the third tier. Because the Biden/ Democrat Party foreign policy is positioned on an economic agenda path of international interdependency that does not support, but instead is seeking to blockade America’s traditional energy fuel independence, -- it prioritizes its policy decisions in such a way that it supports global economic and political polarization instead of what is best for the American people, their economy, and ultimately, the global environmental impact of its agenda, placing the economic domestic strength of the U.S. far behind its own political goals. Priority to this imbalance of geopolitical and geoeconomic power-- that does not favor the resiliency of the U.S. economy, but instead, its ‘climate change’ doctrine, becomes a detrimental economic/ political anchor, and this in turn establishes a different dynamic of the balance of each nation state’s global power in relation to the U.S. The Biden administration & Democrat Party’s use of government office as an extension of an agenda distinct in its self-interest from what is best for the American nation, prescribes an erroneous balance of global geoeconomics and geopolitical power positioning American global power in a weakened state: creating a geopolitic/ geoeconomics reality that plays into the political, economic, and military strategy of the governments of Russia, China, and Iran, along with the host of regional smaller nation-states in Africa, Asia, & South America that are entering agreements and trade pacts with them.
That Russia and China, for example, have an agenda of establishing a geopolitical and geoeconomics nation-state alliance pact with countries in Asia, Africa, and South America that includes the creation of a separate currency, banking system, and regional economic and political agendas supporting other like-minded agendas, leading to a strengthening of an interdependency of foreign policy agendas, is therefore, gaining strength in the power void created by the targeting of disallowing American energy independence. The foreign policy decisions from the White House, in this balance dynamic, are helping Russia and China form that conglomerate ‘bloc’ to counter a U.S./ Western economic/ political regionalism of international powers, founded upon the shared instrumentality of their economic and political plans.
This creates a polarization effect in the global balance of power that increasingly positions geoeconomic and geopolitical hostility between two major hubs of centralized regional power conglomerates, each having a host of (potential proxy’s) smaller nation-states that further supports their narrative that their must be a mainstay of its ideologically polarized agenda. The problem with that, aside that it is not the best political, economic, or environmental equilibrium for the U.S.A., is that it is ‘circular reasoning.’— In the year 2022, the Biden administration and nearly all European Union nations subscribe to that same geopolitical/ geoeconomics ideology that prioritizes an interdependency of international powers, instead of an American energy independence that is extremely vital to its economic interest and its ability to successfully employ a foreign policy that furthers its domestic economic strength. Hence, what is suiting up to be a Western ‘bloc’ is sharpening a Russia/ China geopolitical attitude to not slacken the tendency to continue to establish its own regional counterweights. That it would be best for the United States of America, a people that represent people of all nations to be self sufficient and independent, in at least its extraction, production, and use of traditional energy fuels, of which the U.S. Bureau of Land & Management has verified that there are 4.3 trillion barrels of potentially recoverable oil within the U.S., is being ‘spinned' as a fact that can be disregarded and ignored as a topic of national conversation or sustained media reference because the Biden presidency and Democrat Political Party deem it environmentally necessary to create a generational shift (within 10-15 years) in the rapid lowering of the production of energy from oil, to natural gas, and finally, an increasing replacement of traditional energy with renewable energy. The tight timeline is an economic/ political, and eventually, potential military-conflict disaster in the making.
As can be well-understood from numerous, credible sources, the prerogative of the Biden administration and the Democrat Party is to trouble and bankrupt the traditional energy fuel industry:
- in the Supreme Court’s June 30, 2022 opinion of West Virginia v. EPA
- in comments from Saule Omarova, nominated by President Biden in 2021 to be Comptroller of U.S. Currency
- in the targeted contrast of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act that has passed strictly on a polarized Congressional party line voting
The domestic national policy that the air climate of our environment be protected and maintained free of pollution has been made the economic agenda priority, and this in turn has outsourced U.S. domestic demand of over 3 billion barrels of oil from 76 different countries, including Russia and China in 2021. Thus, the global importation of traditional energy resources from nation-states with lesser environmental-efficiency standards for the extraction, production, and transportation of these fuels has been given tacit approval from the Biden administration and the Democrat Party he represents.
Foreign policy agenda is affected with such interdependency, and the practical question of why America is outsourcing its regulation of environmental standards for the extraction, production, and distribution of traditional energy fuels remains as a reality that scoffs at the environmental agenda of the Biden presidency and Congressional Democrats.
The idea that a nation-state’s domestic and global economy and political dynamism calibrates upon the strength and independence of its ability to be self-sufficient amongst other nations is the immediate cornerstone that outlines the foundation of its foreign policy.
With 79% of calendar year 2021 energy usage in the U.S. being oil, natural gas, and coal, in light of the research conducted from the U.S. Supreme Court in its opinion of West Virginia v. EPA, the setting of a nation’s domestic and foreign economic policy that pivots on ‘climate change’ and a favoring of an international balance of power that strategizes to maintain an agenda trajectory that continues to prompt a furtherance of geopolitical/ geoeconomics polarization, placing the strength of the United States of America in an artificial position subservient to this order is a dangerous policy to follow and in antagonistic opposition to the natural state of mutual peace amongst nations.
2
The best foundation for the right trajectory for America’s people, their economy, and physical environment should not support a disequilibrium that greatly destabilizes the domestic national economy, but an ability to successfully accomplish a domestic and foreign policy that establishes an outcome that favors domestic economic vitality, mutual global peace, the right balance of global trade, and a furtherance of geoeconomics policy decisions that unify Americans, in spite of their political differences. It is the domestic economic strength of a nation that settles the strength and perspective of its foreign policy. Such a dynamic has to be achieved through the generational shift of our educational goals and objectives to favor the individual economic strength of the American people. It is the entrepreneurs and the founding and mainstay of small businesses that makes America a resilient economy, and its ability to stay wealthy does greatly bank on the ‘cost of living.’ Henceforce, with the understanding that 79% of America energy fuel requirements operate on oil, natural gas, and coal; that 4.3 trillion barrels of potentially recoverable oil can be extracted in the U.S. alone, that industry should not experience governmental opposition, but supported with market entrance incentives that it may diversify and increase its supply with the competition of new companies, and secondary industries focused on innovating the most excellent up-to-date environmental-efficiency standards may flourish.
American energy independence is vital as a support unto the best geopolitical and geoeconomics foreign policy agenda equilibrium as it relates to other countries, and its allowance to lead as the best stewards on the globe should support traditional energy environmental-efficiency technology as key to maintaining a central path that acknowledges our responsibility as human beings to care for a way of life founded on individual equal liberty, justice, and self-determination as individuals who form and shape economy to serve the needs of each other.
An economic hybrid of national self-sufficiency interdependent with other nation-states for the trade of goods and natural resources is most likely the best option to address its strongest foreign policy stance, and with the factual awareness that we have the natural resources to be 100% energy independent and a net exporter of traditional fuels to foreign states, the balance of power can be primed to increase the geopolitical and geoeconomic strength for the foreign policy of the United States of America. Should we ignore the opportunity to weaken the political/ economic polarizing dynamic of foreign nations hostile to the U.S.? A stronger American domestic economy can certainly, if wisely effected into application, introduce a weakening of geoeconomic/ geopolitical polarization that disrupts that divisive strategy of superpowers and their economic proxy host nation-state alliances into two separate ideological/ economic/ political camps. Failure to establish the best equilibrium for the economic foundation in America would create the conditions to allow Russia and China to acquire an increasingly hostile politic, and that could result in proxy military confrontations, an increasingly divided American domestic political environment, and a continued importing of traditional energy fuels from foreign countries who’s process of extraction, production, and distribution of such fuels are not beholden to the environmental-efficiency standards in our oil, natural gas, and coal industry.
Comments