The United States is the world’s largest oil consumer and importer. With the US consumption growing rapidly, its thirst for energy supplies goes up too, compromising its interests, some in Washington claim. Hence, the United States, the only global power today, needs to be self-sufficient and independent, the argument goes — not without some justification — one has to concede.

With mid term election earlier this month, the debate only gained in virility. The issue of energy independence became a major tool, in the hands of politicians, to whip up nationalistic feelings and fervor. “Addiction to oil,” especially since a considerable portion of it was coming from “unstable Middle East,” needed to be taken care of, for the US had to chart an independent policy of its own, politicians from Bush to Clinton harped. It was even portrayed as a way of protecting the United States from costly and bloody foreign wars to secure energy supplies.

For some time now, energy has remained a major source of contention between the Republicans and Democrats. Many among the Democrats have been blaming the current Republican Administration in Washington of not doing enough to wean off the country from imported “Middle Eastern” crude. With many in the current administration coming from energy fraternity, some even accused of complicity.

Energy security and is a major issue and carries great passion. While on one hand there is no dearth of romantics in this oil-rich region too who keep harping on using oil to “take care of all the ills of the region,” while on the other there people in abundance in other parts of the world who desperately long to get rid of their “dependence on oil from the instable Middle East.”

But what does independence in today’s world mean? Can one achieve absolute independence? From pure economic and even political view points, should and could one even aspire for it? Is it even worthwhile to long for these lofty goals and objectives? These and many such questions keep boggling the minds. The struggle between the romantics and the pragmatists continues to this day.

One could vividly recall, proponents of free market economy, arguing, day and night, the benefits of barrier(s) free trade, to promote efficiency in not a very distant past. It was to ensure a win-win situation for both, the producer as well as consumer. It was to herald a more compatible and prosperous era throughout. Every one in what was then the capitalist world, emphasized that non-economical factors should not be allowed to interfere with market forces. That was the medication the free market economists prescribed for the entire globe and indeed the United States has been the torch bearer of free market dynamics.

Energy “independence” remains the vocabulary of lawmakers and others involved in the policy debate and is a “flaw of perception,” Shell Oil Co., President John Hofmeister told a seminar just prior to the elections in the US.

“That flaw of perception is no accident and has been introduced by political considerations,” says James Schlesinger former secretary US departments of Defense and Energy and currently the chairman of the board at Mitre Corp.

Despite calls for increased reliance on domestic fuel and energy, lawmakers who pursue the energy independence “risk undermining the path toward technological promise,” said Stephen D. Pryor, president of ExxonMobil Refining and Supply Co. and a Vice President of ExxonMobil Corp.

Peter J. Robertson, the Chevron VP argued during the seminar that candidates supporting an independent energy approach are “not realistic or responsible.”

Gary Heminger the executive vice president for Marathon Oil Corp. said the much touted alternative fuels “will augment, not replace,” fossil fuels.

Khalid Al-Falih, the Saudi Aramco senior vice president while taking part in the discussion, emphasized, “certainly, the notion of energy independence is an attractive one at first glance and is very popular,” but he warned, “the cost of pursuing the path of energy self-sufficiency would be high.” He criticized the view that new alternative fuels could wean the United States off foreign oil, much of it produced in volatile parts of the world, as hampering the required investment in the sector.

With no substitute available for jet fuel, gasoline and diesel, oil would “remain the dominant fuel for the foreseeable future,” Al-Falih argued. “Since the domestic US production continues to gradually decline while the US oil demand is rising, the prospect of self sufficiency in oil is growing ever more remote,” he strongly argued. More and not less globalization of the market was needed, Falih stressed.

Oil markets are global in nature, crude oil is a fungible commodity, and these two realities mean that energy independence in its literal sense of self-sufficiency is only a dream while energy interdependence is the reality. The world’s sole super power need to concede this fact.