http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew41.php



Sun Dec 9 15:29:51 2001

The Deadly Pipeline War:
US Afghan Policy Driven By Oil Interests


Published on Saturday, December 8, 2001

by Marjorie Cohn

George W. Bush justifies his bombing of Afghanistan as a war against
terror. A twin motive, however, is to make Afghanistan safe for United
States oil interests.

A few days before September 11, the U.S. Energy Information Administration
documented Afghanistan's strategic "geographical position as a potential
transit route for oil and natural and gas exports from Central Asia to the
Arabian Sea," including the construction of pipelines through Afghanistan.

Prior to September 11, United States policy toward the Taliban was largely
influenced by oil. In a new book published in Paris, "Bin Laden, la verite
interdite" ("Bin Laden, the forbidden truth"), former French intelligence
officer Jean-Charles Brisard and journalist Guillaume Dasquie document a
cozy relationship between George W. Bush and the Taliban. The book quotes
John O'Neill, former director of anti-terrorism for the FBI, who thought
the U.S. State Department, acting on behalf of United States and Saudi oil
interests, interfered with FBI efforts to track down Osama bin Laden.

Before he was tapped as Bush's running mate, Dick Cheney was CEO of
Halliburton, the biggest oil services company in the world. In a 1998
speech to the "Collateral Damage Conference" of the Cato Institute, Cheney
said, "the good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are
democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally
we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not
normally choose to go. But, we go where the business is."

Because of the instability in the Persian Gulf, Cheney zeroed in on the
world's other major source of oil, the Caspian Sea, whose resources were
estimated at $4 trillion by U.S. News and World Report. Cheney told oil
industry executives in 1998, "I can't think of a time when we've had a
region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the
Caspian."

But Caspian oil, landlocked between Russia, Iran and former Soviet
republics, presents formidable transport challenges. Afghanistan is
strategically located near the Caspian Sea. In 1994, the U.S. State
Department and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency sought to
install a stable regime in Afghanistan to enhance the prospects for Western
oil pipelines. They financed, armed and trained the Taliban in its civil
war against the Northern Alliance.

In 1995, California-based UNOCAL proposed the construction of an oil
pipeline from Turkmenistan, south through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the
Arabian Sea. Yasushi Akashi, U.N. Under-Secretary General for
Humanitarian Affairs, was critical of "outside interference in Afghanistan"
in 1997, which, he said, "is now all related to the battle for oil and gas
pipelines. The fear is that these companies and regional powers are just
renting the Taliban for their own purposes."

Meanwhile, feminists and Greens in the United States mobilized opposition
to UNOCAL's pipeline deal and Washington's covert support of the Taliban,
because of the latter's oppression of women. In 1998, after the U.S.
bombed Al-Qaeda training camps in retaliation for the bombings of the
U.S. embassies in Africa, UNOCAL pulled out of the pipeline negotiations.

Once the Taliban are overthrown and the U.S. installs a pro-Western
government, lucrative investment opportunities will arise. Rob Sobhani,
president of Washington-based Caspian Energy Consulting, said, "Other major
energy companies could see big opportunities in a deal crucial to
restarting Afghanistan's economy." A new pipeline could produce revenues
totaling $100 million.

United States dependence on Middle East -- and soon Caspian -- oil -- has
led our government to engage itself in heavy-handed, and deadly,
interventions. The development of a sensible U.S. energy policy would
obviate the perceived need to dominate other countries.

But there has been an ongoing pipeline war between Russia and the U.S.,
which support competing pipeline routes.
An energy expert at the National Security Council clarified the United
States' anti-Russia policy in
1997: "US policy was to promote the rapid development of Caspian energy
. . . We did so specifically to promote the independence of these
oil-rich countries, to in essence break Russia's monopoly control over the
transportation of oil from that region, and frankly, to promote Western
energy security through diversification of supply."

Former Russian President Boris Yeltsin recognized this in 1998: "We cannot
help seeing the uproar stirred up in some Western countries over the energy
resources of the Caspian. Some seek to exclude Russia from the game and
undermine its interests. The so-called pipeline war in the region is part
of this game."

This pipeline war has taken some curious turns since September 11. A New
York Times article in October emphasized new oil cooperation between Russia
and the United States. Laurent Ruseckas of Cambridge Energy Research
Associates said: "This whole idea of the U.S. and Russia fighting over
Caspian oil seems completely outdated. The West would like to see Russian
and Caspian oil on stream as quickly as possible."

But after September 11, Russia, which has sustained the Northern Alliance
for ten years, provided it with heavy artillery and encouraged it to move
into Kabul, in direct contravention of Bush's orders. Eric R.
Margolis, author of "War at the Top of the World - The Struggle for
Afghanistan, Kashmir and Tibet," chides Bush's naivete in thinking "the
Russians are now our friends." Margolis warns, "the president should
understand that where geopolitics and oil are concerned, there are no
friends, only competitors and enemies."

At this point, the outcome of U.S.-Russian relations, and the pipeline war,
remains uncertain. The deaths and starvation of thousands of Afghanis,
however, is a certainty. Regardless of how the black gold is ultimately
piped out of the Caspian Sea, the United States should replace its pipeline
of bombs with a pipeline of humanitarian assistance to the people of
Afghanistan.

Reply via email to