It is a wish of almost every statesman, particularly realist proponents, to have an autarky state which it means sufficient and self-independent from external faceted factors including political and non-political forces such as energy security. But that’s a bit ideal since today’s borderless issues prove different. According to Keohane and Nye, one is living under the interdependent world where one tiny problem in one corner of the globe may affect states, groups and individuals from the other part of the world. Not only political issues that owe importance to states but non-military issues do have greater influence to human races, too. Thus, such proponent of liberal as Keohane and Nye have strongly advocated for greater cooperation and extending bigger agenda to not just talk about high politics but also including other issues in the table.
The same thing does apply to energy security. As Nivola and Carter have elaborated, energy is global issue and needed to be dealt by global cooperation. A state, even though they are powerful or powerless, they can hardly survive and without any impacts from fluctuation of global energy price or unsafely transportation of energy supply. A state may diversify their sources of energy supply for they can’t stay away from buying or selling world’s oil or petroleum. Opting-out from depending on global energy supply might not help to stabilize the price of energy supply. Rather it may hurt both local and international business. The reason is because of energy hunger countries are in the row to grasp those opportunity to buy; one state opt-out from buying does not make any different change. Hence, from liberal point of view autarky(ism) is not the solution. One is living in an interconnected world or worldwide web. Most of the issues are transcendence of states’ boundary and that they are required beyond states to solve them.
However, how can cooperation between states regarding energy issue be achieved? It is pretty good idea to tell states not to self-isolation and to begin a greater integrated action internationally but it is quite utopian. The problems arise: who to talk to: groups, states or IOs and in which format: bilateral or trilateral or multilateral? What if the agreement is reached who to overlook and take care this treaty? States will not have to comply for internationals agreements and treaties that are accomplished with no enforcement power. Of course, one can see that there are very interactive diplomatic relations between states and between states and IOs. But does that translate that states are cooperating for greater solution regarding issues such as energy security? Or do they just intervene to keep their status-quo regardless other small states’ interests? Very often, states, large and small, are adapting themselves to the given reality of unequal power in the world rather than cooperating. They know (and everybody knows) for sure that relying on external sources will place themselves in high risk and that states most often prefer a self-sufficient status, as realist always claimed. If states could find a way to sustainably create and use energy without any interruption at home, they will definitely do it although they may import some from outsiders because this is the way to put them in secure place.
Questions that have to be resolved by global leaders are:
1. Can a state at all be an autarky?
2. Is cooperation between states & states and states & IOs a consequence of liberals or realists?
3. Do we have to think from a state-centrism perspective by not depending on others so that states can be secured or from multi-factors by relying both local and international to implement one another so that people will enjoy greater benefit?
4. Isn’t it always about the interests’ calculation whether to stick with the groups or stay apart? If states found out they are losing lots of profits because of cooperating behaviors, they may seek ways to withdraw. (For example, the UK is going to review whether they should continue to stay in the EU).