Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the international community has increasingly looked to oil as a means of enforcing its will, notably in South Africa, Libya, Iraq and Iran. While there remains reasonable debate over the effectiveness of such sanctions, there is none whatever over their legitimacy under international law. While US companies might be inveigled into dropping their guard over environmental issues, they deeply resent having their energy policy defined in terms of a general set of foreign policy principles, ranging from human rights violations, drug trafficking, the export of terrorism or the development of weapons of mass destruction. As good citizens, they have to obey the law in spite of the loss of business. But if complaining about such legislation confirms the public prejudice that they are amoral and avaricious, not complaining is a frank admission to host governments that they are instruments of US foreign policy, pure and simple.
Oil is a dirty fuel.
It can pollute both the physical and political environment, even with the most careful monitoring. But if the industry has come a long way in recognising that its own best interests lie in respecting safety standards, an aversion to regulation of any kind is bred in the bone. Rather than assuming a more proactive role as a partner of government, it has been, for the most part, its bitterest critic. But the industry, as a whole, has been appallingly slow in coming to terms with the changed priorities of its primary market, the western consumer. There were valid arguments for draconian action in the 1980s and 1990s.