The 1973 Oil Embargo was a decision of Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) to reduce oil supply to the United States, Japan, Britain, Netherlands, and Canada due to what was perceived as unfair policy in the exploration of oil in the Arab countries. Most of the Arab countries believed that the oil exploration activities in their countries were more beneficial to the United States than them because it was exported to the United States at a low cost and used to process petrochemical products or refined oil products which were sold to Arab countries at a high cost. Furthermore, the Arab countries claimed that the wheat they obtained from the United States in exchange for oil was highly priced which was not comparable with It was the first time the world had seen this and was generally a welcomed change. Most of the world followed suit and it quickly became part of everyone’s daily life. At least for the general public the freight of oil or oil shortage was dissolving as citizens became comfortable oil. The fear of running out quickly became an issue again at the beginning of the crisis. For the government and President Richard Nixon at the time of the crisis its clear their first response was to minimize the public outcry. The message that Nixon needed to get across to keep the public’s trust was, the crisis is a small issue here in the United States and with your strength and cooperation everything will be back to normal soon. Minimizing the problem was of the upmost important to not cause widespread chaos. Nixon began his speech describing the hardships the rest of the world would face in comparison the A number of foreign policies were enacted which enabled the lifting of the embargo by OPEC countries. For instance, it was demanded by OPEC countries that foreign oil companies must increase prices and cede higher shares of revenues to the local subsidiaries. This resulted in the decision by Richard Nixon to announce a new energy strategy aimed at boosting regional production and to reduce its vulnerability to oil imports and reduce the strain of fuel shortages throughout the nation (Ross
The world would have been very different if we had not landed on the moon and made it back safely those couple days in July of 1969. Many people were nervous and skeptical that the mission of Apollo 11 wouldn’t work, some even coming to the worst case scenario. As a president, President Nixon had to be prepared for any outcome of this great event in history. Regardless of the mission’s success, a speech was prepared for the outcome of Apollo 11 failing. The speech, In Event of Moon Disaster, written for President Nixon, effectively uses pathos and logos to appeal to a distraught nation in fragile time and uses descriptive language to regain the embodiment of hope again in the country. Because it was written before the event took place, however,
The 1960s marked a time of great change, turmoil, and innovation in American history. President John F. Kennedy worked hard to ensure the best for the citizens of the United States and that is why, when steel corporations raised their prices 3.5 percent in a time of economic distress, Kennedy responded with outrage. In his speech to the American people on April 11, 1962, President John F. Kennedy used a plethora of rhetorical strategies to persuade the American public to join his crusade against the greed of large steel companies.
The "Checkers Speech" saved Nixon's career, what was left of it.. Eisenhower kept him on the ticket just because of his looks and he went on to serve eight years as Vice President. He wanted to win by a lot. In 1960 Nixon ran for President, losing a close race to John F. Kennedy. The smell of hope. He was paranoid. Two years later he lost a bitter race for Governor of California to Pat Brown and retired from politics, telling the press, "There is always next year. He was paranoid.
In 1964, the United States was still recovering from a recession when the steel companies decided to raise the price of steel by 3.5 percent. President John F. Kennedy held a press conference to discuss the issue of steel prices. In his speech, John F. Kennedy attempts to reverse the public support for the steel companies by casting them as unpatriotic and greedy to make them look bad.
Roosevelt addressed the economic crises throughout his speech. Unemployment was a priority and he asks the nation to come together as an army to fight the war against this Great Depression. His plan was to produce more jobs and generate the money to bring the nation up from the ashes. He promises that to all that he can, as his constitutional duty, to resolve the issues crippling the
President Nixon gave his resignation speech on August 9, 1974. This speech said that he would be resigning from office and stating Gerald Ford as the new president of the United states. He provoked the emotions of the reader in his speech, his words attempting to raise the country’s morale to bring in the new president. He claimed that he had “always tried to do what was best for the nation” (1). This shows emotion and expression as he claims that he has always tried to do his best. Later he states the reasons
Energy Crisis (1970’s) states that the crisis officially began when the “Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) reduced their petroleum production and proclaimed an embargo on oil shipments to the United States and the Netherlands, the main supporters of Israel.” They did this because of the United States providing support to Israel during the Yom Kippur War (Energy Crisis (1970’s)). Although it “ended in late October, the embargo and limitations on oil production continued, sparking an international energy crisis” (Energy Crisis (1970’s)). The United States presumed that a boycott would damage the Persian Gulf financially, however, because of the rise in the price of oil, it actually helped them (Energy Crisis (1970’s)). The price of oil actually shot from $3 a barrel to $12 a barrel. (Energy Crisis (1970’s)). This produced tremendous lines at gas stations, exorbitant gas prices, and people were told not to put up Christmas lights. Other countries that were affected could only heat one room in the winter (Energy Crisis (1970’s)). The American auto manufactures were injured as well while they were turning out large vehicles, whereas Japanese manufacturers produced tiny fuel- efficient autos (Energy Crisis (1970’s)).
Pratt, Joseph A. “Exxon and the Control of Oil.” Journal of American History. 99.1 (2012): 145-154. Academic search elite. Web. 26. Jan. 2014.
Within a few months, "Watergate" scandal which was a break-in at the offices of the Democratic National Committee during the 1972 campaign went beyond public humiliation of Nixon and his administration. The break-in was traced to officials of the Committee to re-elected president. Nixon denied any personal involvement, but secret tapes of White House conversations later revealed that the president had participated in efforts to cover up the criminal activity. The House Judiciary Committee voted three articles of impeachment: obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress. Further discrediting Nixon was the news that he had authorized 3,500 secret bombing raids in Cambodia, a neutral country. Also when the U.S supported Israel, it caused worldwide oil shortage and long lines at gas station in the United States as the Arab members of OPEC placed an embargo on oil sold to Israel’s supporters. More than that, the impact on U.S economy was worse because the country now suffered from inflation, unemployment, and low living
The years leading up to the 1972 election were filled with new political tactics. Going into the election year, President Nixon seemed like he could never lose the second term election after successfully negotiating with Vietnam, Beijing, and Russia to improve international relations (Emery 4). Raising international toughness made Nixon seem like the most worthy person to stay president. Fred Emery analyses in his novel Watergate: The Corruption of American Politics and the Fall of Richard Nixon, the president was also setting up the first summit meeting in history with Soviet Union Presidents (3). There seemed to be nothing capable of holding the seemingly responsible man back. However, this assurance came with massive consequences. The absolute certainty that Nixon would be reelected fueled the lies and abuse of power by the Nixon government (Emery 195). As the outlook of landslide winnings took over the White House, the moral reasoning, “the end justifies the means” became more prevalent. Nixon was obsessed with winning and being successful. Under his command his staff did whatever possible to ...
The United States has had several scares throughout its history in terms of oil, most turn out to be over exaggerations of a small event. However, these scares highlight a massive issue with the U.S. and that issue is the U.S.’s dependence on foreign oil. Why does it matter that our oil should come from over seas? In a healthy economy this probably wouldn’t be as relevant, but the U.S.’s economy is not exactly healthy at the moment. There are 4 things that I would like to address: what the problem is, how it affects us, what some solutions are, and what solutions I feel are best.
...ed to nationalize the Suez Canal through which three fourths of all European oil is passed. After several months of negotiations Britain, France and Israel attacked Egypt and retook the canal. United Nations condemned their actions and forced them to give up the canal to Egypt once again. As a result of the Eisenhower convinced Congress to approve the Eisenhower Doctrine that would “assist any nation in the region that required aid against aggression from any nation controlled by International Communism.” The Eisenhower administration was very careful not to alienate any Middle Eastern countries that could provide the country with a steady supply of oil and this affected his foreign policy and the policy of containment.
The pro-Israel intervention represented the US foreign policy reaction when the violation to regional stability was committed by Israel. The cases discussed above were evaluated against the US reaction to Israel’s regional behaviour; in terms of whether the Israeli behaviour served or hampered US interest in maintaining regional stability and whether or not the US opposed Israel when it acted in ways that the United States deemed undesirable. It was concluded that, as a general rule, Washington was ready to intervene to address any violation to the status quo in the Middle East system except when this violation was committed by its regional surrogate. Israel had contributed directly in destabilizing the Middle East system (pushing the system out of its equilibrium point) in several cases, four of which have been discussed above. These crises, in spite of their negative effect on regional stability, witnessed minimal US reaction.
Although completely unreported by the U.S. media and government, the answer to the Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking -- it is in large part an oil currency war. One of the core reasons for this upcoming war is this administration's goal of preventing further Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves. The second coalescing factor that is driving the Iraq war is the quiet acknowledgement by respected oil geologists and possibly this administration is the impending phenomenon known as Global "Peak Oil." This is projected to occur around 2010, with Iraq and Saudi Arabia being the final two nations to reach peak oil production. The issue of Peak Oil has been added to the scope of this essay, along with the macroeconomics of `petrodollar recycling' and the unpublicized but genuine challenge to U.S. dollar hegemony from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. The author advocates graduated reform of the global monetary system including a dollar/euro currency `trading band' with reserve status parity, a dual OPEC oil transaction standard, and multilateral treaties via the UN regarding energy reform. Such reforms could potentially reduce future oil currency and oil warfare. The essay ends with a reflection and critique of current US economic and foreign policies. What happens in the 2004 US elections will have a large impact on the 21st century.
The oil industry can not be discussed without mentioning the name John D. Rockefeller. Rockefeller changed the business of oil distribution. In the 19th century Rockefeller began his humble beginnings with a small investment, along with two other partners, in the oil refining business. Eventually Rockefeller upset at the direction of the company bought out his partners. He was now buying into refining and developing kerosene and other petroleum-based products. He later named this company The Standard Oil Company which by 1872 nearly owned all the oil refineries in Cleveland. In 1882, Rockefeller took all his holdings and merged them into the Standard Oil Trust. Through smart business practices and some deception, Rockefeller was able to control three-fourths of the petroleum industry by the 1900’s. After his retirement the company faced problems. (Rockefeller archive) The U.S. government believed that the Standard Oil Trust was a monopoly and ordered its breakup much like the process that is taking place today with Microsoft.