August 18, 2005
By Ariel Cohen, Ph.D. and William L.T. Schirano
It's a move that anyone outraged by high gasoline prices would
applaud -- a non-profit labor group suing the Organization for
Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).
That was in 1978, though -- and the lawsuit failed. A U.S. appeals
court threw it out three years later, noting that OPEC's member
states enjoy immunity from prosecution under the Sherman Antitrust
Act. Congress recently had a perfect opportunity to change that --
and wasted it.
In June, the Senate approved an amendment that would have let the
federal government sue OPEC. It was a welcome first step toward
re-establishing the free market in this strategically important
sector. Indeed, this long-overdue move could have pointed the way
to a second step: allowing private antitrust suits against OPEC.
But the amendment failed to survive House-Senate negotiations over
the energy bill.
American consumers are the real losers. Since its inception in
1960, OPEC, which is dominated by Persian Gulf producers, has
successfully restricted its members' petroleum production,
artificially distorting the world's oil supply to line their
pockets. This supply-fixing strategy has repeatedly wreaked havoc
on the U.S. and global economies:
The cartel's operations ensure that its members' oil and gas
economies remain insulated from foreign investment flows. OPEC
members bar foreign investors from owning oil fields and pipelines,
thus perpetuating the cartel's de facto monopoly over the
Indeed, the only serious challenge to the group came in the 1978
lawsuit, when the International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers (IAM) sued OPEC. But the decision to reject the
case was wrong. Government-owned companies that engage in purely
business activities don't warrant sovereign immunity
The wealth that's extracted from Western consumers via OPEC's high
oil prices does more than just enrich petroleum producers. It's
used to fund terrorism through some oil sheikhs' individual
contributions and government-controlled, Persian Gulf-based
"non-profit" foundations. It also permits hundreds of millions of
dollars to be spent on radical Islamist education in extremist
madrassahs (Islamic religious academies).
Rising concerns over energy prices at last prompted Congress
earlier this year to examine the legal hurdles that prevent the
United States from defending its economic and national security
interests. A group of senators led by Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio,
introduced the "No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act," known
as NOPEC, to amend the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and
exporting cartels subject to lawsuits in U.S. courts.
On June 21, DeWine, with the support of Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wisc.,
was able to add a NOPEC-like amendment to the Energy Policy Act of
2005. This amendment would have modified the Sherman Act to allow
the U.S. Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission to
bring suits against OPEC for its monopolistic practices. It also
would have sent a long-overdue signal to OPEC oil barons that they
must stop limiting production and investment access.
Of course, more reform would be needed. If the cartel is to be
reined in, individuals and companies it has damaged must have the
right to sue. As the IAM v. OPEC decision made clear,
Congress should amend the Sherman Act to allow private suits
But NOPEC would have been a good start. Without the kind of
pressure it would exert, there's no reason for the cartel to cease
its monopolistic practices. And there's no reason for Americans to
expect anything other than more of the same from OPEC --
insufficient production and higher energy bills.
Ariel Cohen, Ph.D.,
is a senior research fellow, and William Schirano is a researcher,
in the Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage
Distributed nationally on the Knight-Ridder Tribune wire
It's a move that anyone outraged by high gasoline prices would applaud -- a non-profit labor group suing the Organization for Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).
Ariel Cohen, Ph.D.
Visiting Fellow in Russian and Eurasian Studies and International Energy Policy in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign and National Security Policy, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation
Read More >>
William L.T. Schirano
Heritage's daily Morning Bell e-mail keeps you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.
The subscription is free and delivers you the latest conservative policy perspectives on the news each weekday--straight from Heritage experts.
The Morning Bell is your daily wake-up call offering a fresh, conservative analysis of the news.
More than 450,000 Americans rely on Heritage's Morning Bell to stay up to date on the policy battles that affect them.
Rush Limbaugh says "The Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell is just terrific!"
Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) says it's "a great way to start the day for any conservative who wants to get America back on track."
Sign up to start your free subscription today!
The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s most broadly supported public policy research institute, with hundreds of thousands of individual, foundation and corporate donors. Heritage, founded in February 1973, has a staff of 275 and an annual expense budget of $82.4 million.
Our mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. Read More
© 2014, The Heritage Foundation Conservative policy research since 1973