[iwar] Afghanistan: the pipeline war?

From: yangyun@metacrawler.com
Date: 2001-11-03 00:12:28

Next message: e.r.: "Re: [iwar] Afghanistan: the pipeline war?"
Previous message: yangyun@metacrawler.com: "[iwar] Afghanistan: the pipeline war?"
Next in thread: e.r.: "Re: [iwar] Afghanistan: the pipeline war?"
Reply: e.r.: "Re: [iwar] Afghanistan: the pipeline war?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Message-ID: <9s08tc+r2bh@eGroups.com>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
From: yangyun@metacrawler.com
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2001 08:12:28 -0000
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iwar] Afghanistan: the pipeline war?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1626000/1626889.stm

Monday, 29 October, 2001, 20:56 GMT BBC
Afghanistan: the pipeline war?

[Oil pipelines]
Some commentators have asked if it's all about oil
By BBC Eurasia Analyst Malcolm Haslett

Some attractively original theories have been going the rounds about
the real reasons for the Afghan war.

It is obviously much more, some columnists and political theorists
suggest, than a simple effort to stamp out terrorism.

Apart from the popular theory (in some parts of Europe as well as the
Middle East) that this is a war on Islam, there is also the theory
that it is a war motivated mainly - or even purely - by long-term
economic and political goals.

The importance of Central Asian oil and gas has suddenly been noticed.

The valuable deposits of fossil fuels in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and
Azerbaijan, previously discussed only by regional experts and
international energy companies, are now being mulled over on the
opinion pages of popular dailies.

Economic imperatives

The Afghan war, it has been discovered, has an economic side to it.

[Petrol filling station]
Oil is undeniably important to the Americans
Some writers, indeed, have gone further, suggesting that economic
considerations provide the main, or at the very least a major,
motivation for US and western involvement in Afghanistan.

If one discounts the more extreme and emotional versions of this
theory, the argument boils down to this:

    * Afghanistan has been proposed by more than one western oil
company (the US-based Unocal is often mentioned, but it is not the
only one) as the best route by which to export the Central Asian
republics' important output of oil and gas
    * Given the increasing importance of finding and exploiting new
sources of fossil fuel, governments like those of the US and the UK
are enormously keen to gain influence in the Central Asian region in
order to secure those supplies for the West
    * In order to achieve that, and get those energy supplies moving
out of Central Asia, they need to set up a pro-western government in
Afghanistan.

Flawed theory

This line of argument falls down on a number of points.

It is undeniably true that the Central Asian republics do have very
significant reserves of gas and oil, and that they have been having
difficulty in getting them on to the world market on conditions
favourable to them.

Until recently Russia had an almost total monopoly of export
pipelines, and was demanding a high price, in economic and political
terms, for their use.

[Saparmurat Niyazov ]
Niyazov: main proponent
But it simply is not true that Afghanistan is the main alternative to
Russia.

On the contrary, very few western politicians or oil companies have
taken Afghanistan seriously as a major export route - for the simple
reason that few believe Afghanistan will ever achieve the stability
needed to ensure a regular and uninterrupted flow of oil and gas.

There have been exceptions, of course, like Unocal and the Argentine
company Bridas.

The main proponents of the Afghan pipeline idea, however, apart from
the Taleban regime itself and its backers in Pakistan, was the
government of the eccentric Turkmen President Saparmyrat Niyazov,
known as "Turkmenbashi".

Caucasus route

The West, in contrast, and particularly the US, has put almost all its
efforts into developing a major new route from the Caspian through
Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Black Sea.

This had the potential advantage (from a western point of view) of
bypassing Russia and Iran, and breaking their monopoly of influence in
the region - allowing the states of the Caucasus (Georgia, Azerbaijan
and possibly Armenia) and Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan) to develop a more balanced, independent
foreign policy.

[Afghan refugees]
The Afghans would benefit from a pipeline
That, of course, worries many in Russia, and to a lesser degree in Iran.

They also now fear that the Central Asians' willingness to entertain
US forces on their territory could substantially increase US influence
in the region.

Such a scenario, however, is far from certain.

The western powers have caused considerable annoyance among the
authoritarian regimes of Central Asia by harping on human rights
abuses - particularly, incidentally, against Muslims - and the need
for greater democratisation.

It seems highly unlikely, moreover, that the US-led "Coalition against
Terrorism" has any illusions about how "pro-western" any potential new
Afghan Government would be.

The main prerequisite for the survival of a new administration in
Kabul, is that it win wide acceptance among the various ethnic and
political groupings in Afghanistan itself.

No US stooges

And very few of those groups are exactly pro-western.

Western influence in Afghanistan would, at best, remain shaky.

In addition, if peace and stability were to return to Afghanistan, and
a new pipeline to Central Asia was to be built, the principal
beneficiaries would undoubtedly be the Afghans, as well as Pakistan,
Turkmenistan, and the other Central Asians.

In brief, then, considerations of economic and political influence
will undoubtedly play a part in western strategies in Afghanistan.

It would be strange if they did not. But the argument that these are
the main motivations behind US actions, not the desire to stamp out
international terrorism, will probably find support mainly among those
who already have a fondness for conspiracy theories.

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Next message: e.r.: "Re: [iwar] Afghanistan: the pipeline war?"
Previous message: yangyun@metacrawler.com: "[iwar] Afghanistan: the pipeline war?"
Next in thread: e.r.: "Re: [iwar] Afghanistan: the pipeline war?"
Reply: e.r.: "Re: [iwar] Afghanistan: the pipeline war?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-12-31 20:59:58 PST