In the process, OPEC has savored both — brickbats and affection. It has been severely criticized, at times, for acting only in self interest and not taking into account, the wider interests of the consuming nations.

The rise of OPEC is tied to a shifting balance of power from the multinational oil companies to the oil producing countries. OPEC came into being at a juncture when the oil industry was in almost total control of the so called "Seven Sisters" — the US’ Standard Oil, the Standard Oil Company of New York, Standard Oil of California, Gulf Oil and Texaco — along with Shell and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company.

Lacking exploration skills, production technology, refining capacity, and distribution networks, oil producing countries were at the mercy of the IOCs (International Oil Companies) — unable to challenge their domination.

But interestingly even then, there was the desire to wrest the initiative away from the Seven Sisters. Mexico attempted to take control of its oil industry as early as 1938; however, the initiative got stuttered — apparently due to insufficient capital for investment.

And the struggle to wrest initiative from the IOCs is as old as the industry itself. Although Hugo Chavez is today blamed by the West for his attempts to take control of its resources and hence its destiny, even in 1943 Venezuela signed the first "fifty-fifty principle" agreement which provided it with a lump sum royalty plus a fifty-fifty split of profits (selling price minus production cost). In the late 1940's Venezuela revised its tax system to capture a greater share of the oil profits.

Oil companies were not ready to take it lying down. They hit back by shifting oil purchases to countries with cheaper contracts. In response, Venezuela reportedly encouraged other producers to demand similar "fifty-fifty" deals and reform their tax systems. Around the same time, Saudi Arabia too demanded and received a similar contract from the Arabian — American Oil Company (Aramco), the predecessor of today’s Saudi Aramco.

In 1947, the Iranian Parliament passed a law demanding the termination of previous agreements with Anglo-Iran (referred to as Anglo-Persian prior to 1935 and British Petroleum after 1954). When negotiations failed to lead to a compromise, Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh nationalized oil operations in May 1951. This led to a major political upheaval, culminating in the elimination of Mossadegh — not ready to compromise and toe the Western line — from the scene.

A CIA-sponsored coup, orchestrated by none other than Roosevelt’s grandson — succeeded in toppling Mossadegh in 1953. A new British-Iranian agreement, as per the whims of the IOCs, was signed the following year.

While world oil demand grew during the 1950s, they were outpaced by the growth in production. The increases in supply drove market prices even down. The downward push on prices led to a policy debate in Washington. Although the United States had been a net exporter of oil until 1948, the expansion of cheaply produced oil from the Middle East led to rising imports. As prices fell, domestic producers simply could not compete.

Moreover, the Eisenhower Administration concluded (as the Japanese had prior to World War II), dependence on foreign oil placed the country's national security in jeopardy (the debate thus is not new — one could heave a sigh of relief). The US thus responded with an import quota. The quota kept domestic prices artificially high and represented a net transfer of wealth from American oil consumers to American oil producers. By 1970, the world price of oil was $1.30 and the domestic price of oil in the US was $3.18.

In order to recapture profits, the multinational oil companies tried to cut the "posted" price from 1958 onward. In 1959, British Petroleum unilaterally cut oil prices by about 10 percent. It instantly set off denunciation from the oil exporting countries. In fact as the struggle between the IOCs and the holders of the assets exacerbated, in 1960, after a second cut in the posted price, five major oil producing countries — Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela — decided to formally launch the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).

What could be regarded as a watershed in OPEC’s history was the "Declaratory Statement of Petroleum Policy in Member Countries" in 1968, emphasizing the inalienable right of all countries to exercise permanent sovereignty over their natural resources in the interest of their national development. This had major repercussions in the years to come.

However, the influence of OPEC on the oil markets has been low in the early decades. In the 60s it controlled only 28 percent of the production. By 1970, this figure rose to a more significant 41 percent. In 1971, the IOCs still controlled 70 percent of the global reserves. Today the state run firms, the NOCs control almost 93 percent of the global oil reserves.

However, OPEC shot to prominence in 1973, when in the aftermath of Youm-Kippur Arab Israel war, and when President Richard Nixon, under the guidance of Henry Kisisnger, publicly proposed a $2.2 billion military aid package for Israel, Arab oil producers began an oil embargo against the United States (later expanded to the Netherlands, Portugal, South Africa, and Rhodesia). In the eyes of the normal consumer at the gas station — OPEC was the villain.

From a prevailing price of less than $3 a barrel, the new official OPEC price was almost quadrupled to $11.65. From 1973 to 1984, oil rose to more than $45 from $2, and this is what you might call the effect of the NOCs,” underlined the Qatar Energy Minister Abdullah bin Hamad Al-Attiyah at an event held in Dubai last month.

And the struggle to dominate the industry continues unabated. OPEC has often been blamed for high costs and accused of controlling oil prices to its favor. Yet, what is wrong in acting to protect self interests? Every one else does. What’s wrong if the OPEC does so? Let’s be fair — both to us and indeed to OPEC.