By – Anisha Jyotirmayee
Abstract
Energy in the 21st Century has moved beyond its role in the economy to become a geopolitical tool of power. States have started resorting to energy as a tool of coercive diplomacy. This article argues the use of energy as a weapon is an expression of the increasing relevance of geoeconomics as a dimension of international politics, which involves the pursuit of political aims via economic measures. This article also highlights the various mechanisms through which this is achieved. This article exemplifies the Arab oil embargo and the Japan-China rare earth dispute to show the ways of weaponising energy. The article shows that the global energy transition is not reducing the geopolitical rivalries; it is changing their nature by replacing resource politics with a new one based on clean energy and minerals.
Introduction
Energy in the 21st century is more than just an asset used for economic prosperity; it has become a weapon. The weaponization of energy is the strategic use of oil, gas, electricity, or critical green minerals as political and military leverage. Countries use supply cuts, price manipulation, and infrastructure blockades to coerce other nations. Rather than simply selling oil or gas on commercial terms, governments manipulate production, prices, exports, or access to influence another state’s political decision. Some of the different ways this strategy may be executed include the limitation of energy exports in order to put pressure on another country, using sanctions to inhibit the ability of a nation to manufacture and export energy, and controlling important energy transit pathways such as pipelines and maritime passages. Another approach could include manipulation of international energy prices through production agreements and control of important minerals for renewables. Unlike traditional military coercion, energy weaponization exploits economic dependence. The greater a country’s dependence on imported fuel or minerals, the more vulnerable it becomes to external pressure.
Energy Dependence and Political Vulnerability
Energy dependence lies at the centre of energy weaponisation. While international trade often creates mutual economic benefits, unequal dependence transforms economic relationships into instruments of public influence. A state that relies heavily on external sources for essential energy supplies may find its foreign policy choices constrained by the possibility of economic disruption. Energy dependence concerns the degree to which a state lacks alternative suppliers, technologies, or infrastructure. If an importing state has access to varied sources and alternative energy resources, then despite having high energy imports, there is no strategic dependency on such countries. When there is heavy reliance on a few sources for energy flows, there is increased dependency which poses geopolitical risks. This is due to the concept of asymmetric interdependence. This imbalance allows supplier states to transform economic relationships into political influence.
The dependence of Europe on natural gas from Russia prior to 2022 is an example of such an asymmetry. Even though Russia relied on European markets in order to earn money, a number of European countries were more dependent on Russia’s pipeline natural gas due to geographic proximity, long-term contracts and existing infrastructure. This infrastructure-based dependence created a vulnerability that became politically significant during the Russia–Ukraine conflict. Energy dependence, therefore, influences foreign policy behaviours. Countries often avoid confronting major energy suppliers because it could threaten fuel supplies, increase inflation, or trigger economic recession. Thus, energy security has become inseparable from national security.
Mechanisms of Energy Weaponization
The most visible form of energy coercion involves reducing or suspending exports. Governments may cut pipeline deliveries, reduce LNG exports, delay shipments or limit electricity exports to neighbouring states. Even the threat of supply disruption can influence diplomatic negotiations before any actual interruption occurs. Energy producers influence global markets by adjusting production levels; i.e., lower production typically raises prices, increasing revenue for exporters while placing economic pressure on importing countries. These economic pressures are placed through higher transportation costs, rising food prices, increased industrial production costs, inflation or political dissatisfaction. In contrast, oversupplying the market with oil will drive down prices and adversely affect other competing exporters who derive revenue from their hydrocarbon exports. This mechanism is commonly referred to as price manipulation.
Another visible mechanism is through energy sanctions where instead of targeting military capabilities directly, governments increasingly impose sanctions on the energy sector. These measures may include bans on importing oil or gas, restrictions on investment, limits on technology transfers, and financial sanctions against energy companies. The primary objective of this is to reduce state revenue while avoiding direct military confrontation. However, sanctions can also produce unintended consequences, including higher global prices and disruptions to international supply chains. Energy can also be weaponised through infrastructure being used as strategic leverage. In this, pipelines, ports, LNG terminals, electricity grids, and undersea cables become strategic assets. Control over infrastructure determines who receives energy, at what price and under what conditions. Due to the high cost of construction of such infrastructure, nations find themselves trapped in mutually beneficial relationships with their providers. Thus, pipelines dictate foreign policy alliances and politics in the region.
History Speaks
One of the earliest and most influential examples of energy weaponization occurred during the 1973 Arab oil embargo. This was an example of a political act where Arab members of OPEC reduced oil production and stopped their exports to those nations which supported Israel during the Yom Kippur War. Some of the consequences that were experienced because of the same included global problems such as increased cost of oil, four times in price to about $12 a barrel from $3 per barrel, resulting in shortages of fuels and stagflation of economies in the world. Governments adopted conservation policies for energy, set up emergency stockpiles and sought to be self-reliant through drilling for oil in Alaska and even the North Sea region.
After the arrest of a Chinese fishing captain in the East China Sea by Japan, there were reports in the news that China had suspended rare earth mineral exports to Japan. Rare earth minerals are crucial for the manufacture of electronic items, green energy technologies, electric vehicles and defence equipment. While the Chinese government denied the existence of any official embargo, the incident revealed the monopoly enjoyed by China in the processing of rare earths. This incident forced Japan to look for alternative sources of supply, recycle rare earths and not be entirely dependent on Chinese rare earth minerals.
Why Energy Weaponisation Matters
The weaponization of energy has consequences extending far beyond foreign policy. It also has implications for economies, politics, and security. Disruptions in the supply of energy result in high costs of production, which ultimately cause inflation, unemployment, and economic growth slowdowns. Politically speaking, an increase in the cost of fuel leads to protestations, political instability, and social unrest. Political regimes are assessed on how successful they are at maintaining cheap and steady energy supplies. Energy security has become an increasingly popular strategic objective for countries in addition to an economic objective.
Looking Ahead: From Oil Wars to Mineral Rivalries
The energy transition that is sweeping the globe will transform the way geopolitical competition takes place without altering the rationale behind it. The supremacy of fossil fuels may slowly come to an end; however, strategic competition is now moving towards the domination of minerals, battery power, electric grids, hydrogen, and energy infrastructure. Future wars could be about lithium mines and rare earth refining plants instead of oil pipelines and semiconductor production. This means that weaponisation of energy may only be evolving, not disappearing.
Conclusion
The weaponisation of energy shows that power in international politics is now dependent on control over the natural resources and infrastructure needed to run the modern economy. Through disrupting supply, imposing sanctions, manipulating prices, and having leverage over rare minerals, the states have been making use of energy as a tool for coercing others. While the world is gradually shifting its focus towards energy that is clean and more environmentally friendly, the struggle for dominance is continuing but merely shifting to different fronts.
Author’s Bio:
Anisha Jyotirmayee is a student of Journalism and Media Studies at O.P Jindal Global University. Starting with an inclination towards literature, she started writing research-based articles that defined and worked with real social issues.
Image Source: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/4/the-weaponization-of-energy/