The Deadly Pipeline War

[Mark Pavlick]

>
>Jurist
>December 8, 2001
>
>The Deadly Pipeline War
>
>US Afghan Policy Driven By Oil Interests 
>
>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.
>
>Marjorie Cohn is an associate professor at Thomas Jefferson School 
>of Law in San Diego, where she teaches International Human Rights 
>Law. She welcomes comments on this essay at JURIST at law.pitt.edu.

-- 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <../attachments/20011209/b0262a42/attachment.htm>