|| -----Original Message-----
|| From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
|| [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Michael Pollak
|| The oil angle certainly adds something, just like the ethnic angle, the
|| religious angle, the geo-strategic angle, historical angle, the
|| drug-running angle, the truck-smuggling angle, etc. It adds
|| another level
|| of complexity and rivalry. But what it doesn't do is make anything
|| simpler or clearer, IMHO.
OK, since we're in anything-goes mode here:
http://a1044.g.akamai.net/7/1044/1392/1dcf6501c8f9fa/images.ucomics.com/comi cs/tr/2001/tr011004.gif
IMHO, that is...
|| Three minor points about the Unocol, the US and the Taliban: (a) the US
|| supported the Taliban during its ascendant phase only in a rooting it on
|| sense, which was essentially a continuation of its policy from
|| 1992 on: of
|| letting its allies Saudia Arabia and Pakistan do as they please and
|| accepting their appraisals.
Oh really, how very characteristically broadminded of the US!
I've supplied enough links to disprove everything in your post ten times so here goes nothing, judging from the effect it's had: http://eatthestate.org/06-04/PakistantoUnocal.htm
excerpts: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- The US in 1996 considered the Taliban not only an "ally" in the War on Drugs, but as a bulwark against international terrorism. Barnett Rubin, the Afghanistan expert at the US-based Council on Foreign Relations, told Time in October, 1996, "The Taliban do not have any links to Islam's international radicals. In fact, they hate them."
The Independent reported that the Clinton Administration was counting on the "20,000-strong Taliban militia to also deal harshly with the various Islamic revolutionaries and terrorists, from the Middle East, the Gulf and even Chechnya, who have been using Afghanistan as a sanctuary and arms bazaar." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
And this from Rashid: "Thirdly, Casey committed CIA support to a long-standing ISI initiative to recruit radical Muslims from around the world to come to Pakistan and fight with the Afghan Mujaheddin. The ISI had encouraged this since 1982, and by now all the other players had their reasons for supporting the idea."
|| Unless I missed something, Rashid found no
|| evidence to support everyone's suspicions or assertions of US
|| covert aid.
The CIA's Taliban recruiting center, the Maktab at Khidamat, had an office in NY, for pete's sake, that was finally closed after 9-11, and its bank account blocked. And this despite the fact that the CIA's been tailing ObL because of his terrorist activities since 1996 at least (Rashid again). The CIA's back-seat role can be attributed to 3 things: 1) No humint assets in the region (MOSSAD agent Jonathan Pollard burned the entire CIA Middle East network in 1985), 2) Let the Saudis foot the bill (just like they paid for Desert Storm) 3) Deniability.
|| What he found instead was a semi-covert non-policy. (b) the US supported
|| the Unocal pipeline for geostrategic reasons -- to counter the interests
|| of Iran and Russia -- rather than cutting policy to fit oil interests
|| (although granted, once involved, it did support a US company over an
|| Argentine one just for the money); and (c) Unocal couldn't have gotten
|| more screwed in the end. For all its lobbying and heavy
|| hitters, nothing
|| went its way. Oh, and (d) once the US decided it would let Turkmenistan
|| run its pipelines through Iran after all in July 1997, the
|| Unocal pipeline
|| lost its raison d'etre. And this seems to me even more true now.
Another excerpt from the above link: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- The US has smiled benignly on terror in Kashmir and Pakistan's thuggish and corrupt military leaders, because fractured, chaotic Pakistan could dangerously threaten US interests in the region. Among that constellation of interests is a long planned pipeline for natural gas. California Petrogiant Unocal heads up a consortium that wants to build a pipeline for Turkmenistan's natural-gas, across Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean.
Iran has a competing proposal with more advantageous geography, but less advantage to the US economy.
Business Week reported in October, 1996 that "Unocal Vice-President Marty F. Miller recently told the US Senate he's concerned that Iran, which wants to sell gas to Pakistan and has a competing pipeline in the works, will 'promote conflict in order to advance their own economic interests.' Still, senior Unocal execs in Islamabad hope the Taliban's grip on Afghanistan will bring stability." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
Here's another article, "Gas, Oil, and Afghanistan", of which I've posted the link at least twice and you obviously haven't read:
http://members.localnet.com/~jeflan/jfafghanpipe.htm
Excerpts: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- By early 1998 a Unocal led consortium had made a deal with the Taliban to construct an Afghanistan pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan. The Bridas Group cried foul and launched legal action against Unocal, to no avail.
On the question of the Afghanistan route VOA's Beecher says that........
"the most obvious drawback of a proposed pipeline from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan, to Pakistan and down to the Arabian Sea is that there is still a civil war going on in Afghanistan.
Nevertheless, all factions in the civil war have signed agreements supporting the proposed pipeline, according to Bob Todor, executive vice president of Unocal, the company that is leading an international consortium to construct the central Asian pipeline through Afghanistan. (...) Among the many advantages of the Afghanistan route, according to Mr. Todor, is that it would terminate in the Arabian Sea, which is much closer than the Persian Gulf or northern China to key Asian markets:
"There is tremendous international and regional political will behind the pipeline. The pipeline is beneficial to Central Asian countries because it would allow them to sell their oil in expanding and highly prospective Asian markets. The pipeline is beneficial to Afghanistan, which would receive revenues from transport tariffs.... On a regional level, the pipeline will promote stability and encourage trade and economic development between South Asia and Central Asia. Finally, because of the combination of short pipeline distance and the relatively low cost of tankerage, this southern route will result in the most competitive export route to the Asia/ Pacific market." (...) Todor's arguement for the Afghanistan pipeline was also made before the US Congress in 1998, by John J. Maresca, Vice President, International Relations of the Unocal Corporation in testimony to the House Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, February 12, 1998. (...) Unocal's defection did not end pipeline plans. According to the VOA's Sarah Horner "But the pipeline dreams have surfaced again. In May 2000 there were reports of discussions of the issue involving Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Iran and Turkmenistan. And the Taliban newspaper, the Kabul Times, recently reported that the mine and industries minister, Mullah Mohammed Isa Akhond, met representatives of the Central Asia-based US company, Central Asia Oil and Gas Industry. The newspaper quoted company representative, Rafiq Yadgar as saying: "Central Asia Oil and Gas Industry is ready to invest in Afghanistan in the field of oil and gas extraction and meanwhile is willing to build an gas and oil refinery in Afghanistan." He added that Turkmen authorities are ready to cooperate with his company." (...) P.V. Vivekanand, chief editor of The Gulf Today in the United Arab Emirates sums up the pipeline picture in the Caspian/Central Asia region in this way..."There are dozens of oil and gas pipeline projects in Central Asia, some estimated to cost billions of dollars and almost all sparking transborder disputes and controversies. Most of the projects have been discussed for decades as the oil giants wait for the right political conditions to move in. Because pipelines are the best method to transport oil and gas over land, the efficiency of such a delivery system is too tempting for energy exporters and importers to let go of plans in a hurry. And for many potential exporters and pipeline hosts, the realization of such projects can mean economic survival." (...) The Business Recorder of Pakistan reported in March, 2000, that Unocal had once again resumed talks with the Taliban on the Afghanistan route. According to the BR, "The long term economic attractions have been so strong of these gas pipeline projects that no multinational can help taking risks, an observer said. (...) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
||
|| One last footnote: despite the subtitle, most of the fuss in the Great
|| Game Rashid describes is actually about gas, fwiw. But it's a
|| really good
|| book.
||
|| Michael
||
Yeah and some last notes here too:
The BBC announced the Afghan invasion in March. Indian and Pakistani officials confirmed it in June and July.
And this is from http://www.copvcia.com/stories/oct_2001/krongard.html : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- A September 21 story by the Israeli Herzliyya International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism, entitled “Black Tuesday: The World’s Largest Insider Trading Scam?” documented the following trades connected to the September 11 attacks:
- Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but only 396 call options
Assuming that 4,000 of the options were bought by people with advance knowledge of the imminent attacks, these “insiders” would have profited by almost $5 million.
- On September 10, 4,516 put options on American Airlines were bought on the Chicago exchange, compared to only 748 calls. Again, there was no news at that point to justify this imbalance;
Again, assuming that 4,000 of these options trades represent “insiders,” they would represent a gain of about $4 million. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Does that make it simpler or clearer for you?
|| ________________________________________________________________
|| __________
|| Michael Pollak................New York
|| City..............mpollak at panix.com
||
||