On February 12, 2007, the first “terror-free” gas station opened in Omaha, Nebraska. The station, sponsored by the Terror Free Oil Initiative (TFOI), is the first of several stations set to open across the country. TFOI promotes boycotting petroleum products purchased from countries that export or finance terrorism; its practices also raise challenging questions about the economics and politics of oil importation. While the promulgation of a “terror-free” approach to petroleum consumption may not have a significant impact on American oil companies, adherence to this policy may, in the long run, negatively affect US efforts in the war on terror.
The Economy of “Terror-Free”
In his 2006 State of the Union address, President Bush stated, “America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.” While the US is the world’s leading importer and consumer of oil, it is estimated 60 percent of the world’s known reserves are located in the Middle East.
The American Center for Democracy (ACD) developed TFOI with a two-part mandate:
• cut off the flow of terrorist funding derived from oil money
• decrease America’s dependency on foreign oil
It remains to be seen whether the “terror-free” designation will be an enticement for prominent oil companies. Thus far, TFOI has chosen America Hess, Sunoco and Sinclair Oil as “terror-free” oil companies; it has also pointed to big oil companies like Exxon Mobil, Gulf and Shell as companies importing oil from the Middle East. Joe Kaufman, spokesman for TFOI, stated, “We’re not looking to compete with gas stations…. What we’re trying to do is send a message and also tell the American public they can do a small part to fight terrorism.” While it seems, so far, that the terror-free movement appeals to smaller oil companies—who can use the movement as an innovative marketing angle for their products—it is unlikely larger oil companies will jump on the “terror-free” bandwagon. The economic costs of forfeiting one of the most important oil regions would eclipse any perceived image boost.
Whereas it is unlikely the “terror-free” oil movement would significantly impact the oil importation practices of large oil companies, it does have the potential to impact negatively the oil market as a whole. A.F. Alhajii, an energy economist, believes the boycott could have two ramifications. Middle East oil producers may induce a worldwide shortage, similar to the 1973 OPEC embargo. Alternatively, they could overwhelm the market with cheap oil, thereby stifling economic incentives to develop fuel alternatives such as ethanol.
Oil and Counterterrorism: Combustible Bedfellows
It is important to examine whether, as Kaufman claims, a “terror-free” approach would assist in the war on terror. The claim that oil funds terrorism is not illogical. Islamic extremists have received substantial financial backing from the two largest oil exporters: Saudi Arabia and Iran. It’s not unreasonable to assume some of this funding is derived from oil revenue.
Nevertheless, if the “terror-free” movement were to gain momentum, the damage of such a policy on US relations with Middle Eastern countries could be substantial. Some claim the policy would be seen as yet another example of US xenophobia, similar to the uproar caused by the Dubai Ports World scandal (Previous Report). It would likely inflame entrenched resentment in the region, worsening opinion of the US in a part of the world where it is already perilously low.
Looking Ahead
While the political and economic implications of the “terror-free” gas approach are decidedly mixed, the question remains whether or not American drivers would support the “terror-free” oil movement. While TFOI claims its proposal has been met with an “overwhelmingly positive” response, it is unclear if the approach—which would most likely result in higher gas prices and limited availability—would appeal to most Americans. When asked if she would make a special trip to the “terror-free” gas station in Nebraska, one person responded, “I wouldn’t go out of my way to go there, probably. No, I wouldn’t.”
The “terror-free” movement is not without merit. It energizes the debate on finding fuel alternatives and diminishing America’s dependence on oil. Nevertheless, it is unclear if a widespread “terror-free” approach would be advisable; it is likely the costs would outweigh any benefits. In a Washington Post column, Fareed Zakaria stated that reducing America’s oil dependence “would be the single greatest multiplier of American power in the world.” It is important in the quest for reduced oil dependency, however, to support policies that do not harm American interests.
