Does Dependency on Imported Oil Benefit the United States?

CX Strategy Session

Does Dependency on Imported Oil Benefit the United States?

A variety of affirmative plans on this year's topic decrease the United States' use of imported oil.  Affirmatives often claim decreasing dependency as one of their advantages and argue that their plan avoids its negative impacts.     

Some affirmatives argue that funneling large sums of money into often undemocratic governments undercuts national security and is a disaster in the works for several reasons.  First, affirmatives often claim that oil rich countries may use oil revenues to further ideological and political objectives that are contrary to U.S. interests, using the money to fund terrorism or develop nuclear weapons.[1]  In addition, affirmatives may argue that the United States' reliance on foreign oil puts oil rich countries like Iran, Venezuela and Russia in a position of power over the United States.  They can threaten to cut off our energy supply if the we do not support them.[2]  Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei made such a threat in 2006 saying, "If the Americans make the wrong move toward Iran, the shipment of energy will definitely face danger, and the Americans would not be able to protect the energy supply in the region."[3]  Affirmatives use this point to argue that dependency puts the United States in a strategically vulnerable position, constrains our ability to pursue a broad range of political objectives and holds us hostage to the ebb and flow of international politics.[4] 

While these sound like very strong reasons to decrease U.S. dependence on imported oil, the negative team can actually impact turn this argument.  Negatives can concede that the United States is dependent on oil rich countries for energy but argue that the affirmative forgets that dependency works both ways.  Oil rich countries are also dependent on the United States for consumers; the United States is the single largest market for energy in the world.[5]  It is not in oil exporters' interests to alienate their customers.  Threats of embargoes are empty because exporting countries' economies stand to be damaged by an embargo more than the impact on importing countries' economies.

Negative teams can argue that instead of being held hostage to the demands of energy producers, as the affirmative claims, the United States has powerful political leverage over oil producers because it holds the key to future oil supply.  Oil rich countries need sophisticated Western technology to recover more oil and keep production levels high.  As a result, the United States has influence over oil exporters who will need Western technology when production starts to decline. The United States can also threaten to accelerate a drive to develop or implement alternative fuels, realizing the warning once uttered by Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani, Saudi Arabia's former Minister of Oil, who pointed out that "the stone age did not end because of lack of stone."[6]   

In addition to putting the United States in a position of power, dependency can act as a peacemaker and source of stability.  Conflicts cause a disruption of supply, send crude prices spiraling and seriously dampen global demand.[7]  When countries depend upon one another for their well being, they are more likely to make concessions and use diplomacy instead of war to negotiate difficult terms. 

It is also in the interest of exporting countries to avoid crises that spike prices. A prolonged price spike may induce alternative energy innovations and encourage consumers to use less gasoline.  Fearful of this decrease in demand, Saudi Arabia increased production to prevent the price of oil from going too high this summer.

In a debate round you may want to use the example of Iran to illustrate ways oil dependency can benefit the United States.  According to Roger Howard, author of The Oil Hunters, oil potentially could help the outside world frustrate the nuclear ambitions of Iran.[8]  Iran's oil output is likely to steadily decline over the coming years unless it has access to the latest Western technology to find offshore oil deposits and prolong the lifespan of declining wells.  Unless the United States lifts economic sanctions, Iran cannot improve recovery rates. 

In conclusion:

• Dependency works both ways; threats of embargoes are empty because exporting countries' economies would be damaged by an embargo more than importing countries' economies.
• Oil dependency gives the United States powerful political leverage over oil rich countries because it holds the key to future oil supply: Western technology that can keep production levels high.
• Dependency gives importing and exporting countries an incentive to use diplomacy instead of war to avoid crises that disrupt oil markets.
• Dependency gives exporting countries an incentive to avoid spikes in oil prices which will induce alternative energy innovations and decrease future demands.

Use these arguments in a debate round when you hit a team that claims dependency as an advantage. 

[1] Stephen Solomon, "For Security Get Off Oil," Scientific American, Vol. 8 No. 4, 2008.

[2] John Deutch, James Schlesinger and David Victor, "National Security Consequences of U.S. Oil Dependency: Report of an Independent Task Force," Council on Foreign Relations, October 2006.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Statement by Ariel Cohen, Committee on House Foreign Affairs, March 22, 2007

[5] Roger Howard, "An Ode to Oil," The Wall Street Journal, November 29, 2008. 

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Roger Howard, "An Ode to Oil," The Wall Street Journal, November 29, 2008.