The pipeline of greed

 

By Ashfak Bokhari

09 December 2001

© The DAWN Group of Newspapers, 2001

 

 

The war on terrorism may well be a war for resources. In more ways than one, Afghanistan is as indispensable to the US as Egypt was to the West in the Middle East in the 1950s.

 

On October 29, 1994, a convoy of 30 military trucks manned by ex-army drivers, supervised by a senior ISI official and guarded by Taliban fighters set off on a long journey criss-crossing the rugged terrain of Afghanistan that, few anticipated at the time, was to set in motion a chain of events that would not only give birth to new power equations in the region, but also unleash a new wave of misery and destruction on the impoverished country itself.

 

It was a trial convoy. The idea was conceived by former premier Benazir Bhutto's interior minister,Naseerullah Babar. The idea was to use the Taliban, who were then mere armed zealots, for productive purposes. As the convoy proceeded, from one province to another, the Taliban cleared the route by fighting off the regional warlords' men who asked for money to let the convoy go.

 

By November 5, the Taliban had not only cleared the road, but had, with minimal fighting, taken control of Kandahar. In the next three months, Taliban took over without much effort 12 of Afghanistan's 31 provinces. In September, 1995, they entered Herat, effectively clearing the road from Pakistan to Central Asia. The following month, the American oil giant, Unocal, signed an oil pipeline deal with Turkmenistan.

 

The whole exercise, which also gave birth to the Taliban phenomenon, was originally designed to convince and persuade Unocal to go ahead with the project by guaranteeing safety of the route for laying of the 1,000-mile oil pipeline which Pakistan was also to greatly benefit from. According to one estimate, Pakistan was to earn eight billion dollars in transit fees, and get its oil at half price. Later, American policy-makers saw in the Taliban an instrument for furthering US aims in the Caspian basin and Persian Gulf, and placing increasing pressure on China and Russia.

 

But a major deterrent has been the lawlessness, chaotic conditions and internecine strife. What the oil company wanted was a single administration in the whole of Afghanistan before it could put in millions to realize the cherished pipe dream. Unexpectedly, the Taliban emerged as a possible solution, not without the ISI's active help, thus providing the missing link.

 

Four years later, that link stood broken when Taliban chose to protect Osama bin Laden, the Saudi fugitive who had taken refuge in Afghanistan after having launched Jihad against the United States and was wanted by Washington, rather than protect the pipeline and get 15 cents per 1,000 cubic feet from Unocal for the service. So, the pipeline dream went sour and the Taliban became a pariah regime.

 

Come September 11, 2001. President Bush declares an indefinite global war on terrorism as America's answer to the unthinkable attacks on New York and Washington, with top priority being getting hold of Osama "dead or alive" and dismantling of the Taliban regime. But many analysts insist there is much more to it than meets the eye. The whole world cannot be threatened by the US to rally behind it merely to launch a hunt for one man and re-destroy an already destroyed country.

 

Since the October 7 invasion of Afghanistan, Washington's strategy is marked by three distinct features: first, endless demonization of Osama bin Laden by the media in all possible forms (to keep public attention away from real war aims); second, perpetuation of a climate of fear in the United States by slashing civil liberties, making laws harsher, incidence of hate crimes, forecasts of more terrorist attacks and anthrax cases (to demoralize and silence dissidents and critics of all shades); and, third, most of the statements by the president and the key functionaries continue to remind the allies and rival powers that this time the American presence in Afghanistan shall be indefinitely long, to rebuild the country and to ensure stability and peace (a warning to Russia not to raise its stakes in the region).

 

George Monbiot of The Guardian, in a commentary on October 23, described the invasion as "a late colonial adventure". Afghanistan, he says, is as indispensable to regional control to the US and the transport of oil in Central Asia as Egypt was to the West in the Middle East in the 1950s.

 

Halford Mackinder, the British founder of geopolitical theory, had once said: "He who controls Central Asia controls the world." But it seems the fabled race for power and influence in Central Asia  (which Rudyard Kipling had described as the "Great Power Game") has been turned on its head by the US-led war on terrorism.

 

For centuries, this region has been a buffer between Russia to the north and the British, now Americans, to the South. But for the first time in history, Kabul faced enemies wherever it looked. Its status of buffer suddenly disappeared. The United States, Russia, Britain, China, Iran, Pakistan and India - all opposed the government in Kabul. Russia's decision to join the US-led coalition, though taken for selfish reasons, has suddenly brought to an end the old Great Power Game.

 

Hence, now it is America alone which controls the region. Its immediate goal is to strip Russia of its hitherto control over the Caspian oil, and build its bases in Central Asian states, first such base emerging in Uzbekistan just before the war. The Caspian oil reserves are estimated at about 270 billion barrels, some 20 per cent of the world's proven reserves.

 

The primary factor in determining the twists and turns in Washington's policy towards Afghanistan has not been the threat of Islamic extremism, but how best to exploit the new opportunities that Soviet Union's collapse has opened up in the region.

 

The key to huge profits lay in transporting oil from this landlocked region to the world markets. The US would not favour any pipeline through Iran. The only best route is through Afghanistan and Pakistan and then to the entire South Asia. That is why Islamabad and Washington had backed the Taliban when the latter swept into power in 1996, bringing, at least, a degree of stability that foreign investors needed to go ahead with any deal.

 

Within hours of Kabul's capture by the Taliban, the US State Department announced it would establish diplomatic relations with the Taliban regime by sending an official to the Afghan capital – an announcement it also quickly retracted. But the State Department spokesman at the time, Glyn Davies, said the US found "nothing objectionable" in the steps taken by the Taliban to impose Islamic law. Unocal's response was similar: it welcomed Taliban's victory, and then quickly retracted the statement. The meaning was obvious. The US saw the Taliban as the best means for ensuring stability for the Unocal project.

 

Taliban leaders, in an effort to obtain the most lucrative deal, were in the meantime playing the US firm off against the Argentinean oil company, Birdas. Unocal, with the support of Washington, provided nearly one million dollars to set up a Centre for Afghanistan Studies at the University of Omaha, but the money was actually used to set up a school near Kandahar to train the pipefitters, electricians and carpenters needed to construct the pipeline.

 

As Ahmed Rashid in his famous book on Taliban has documented, the Unocal invited some of the leaders of the Taliban to Houston. The delegation, headed by the one-eyed Mulla Mohammed Ghous, reached there in November, 1997. They were lodged in a five-star hotel, visited the zoo, supermarkets and the NASA space centre. They had dinner at the home of Marty Miller, a senior company executive, where they admired his swimming pool and the large, comfortable house.

 

The US had no objection to Taliban's way of governance, lifestyle and religious perceptions. In 1997, a US diplomat told Ahmed Rashid: "The Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis did. There will be Aramco (meaning a consortium of oil companies as in Saudi Arabia), pipelines, an Emir, no parliament and lots of Shariat laws. We can live with that." It seems the Americans were ready to go to any extent to promote business interests in Afghanistan.

 

The Clinton administration was clearly sympathetic to the Taliban because it served its anti-Iran policy. The US Congress had authorized a covert $20 million budget for the CIA to destabilize Iran, but some of these funds, Iran says, went to the Taliban. In fact, the period from 1994 to 1997 saw a flurry of US diplomatic activity to secure support for the Unocal pipeline.

 

In March, 1996, prominent US Senator Hank Brown, a vocal supporter of the Unocal project, visited Kabul and met Taliban leaders. In the same month, the US government put pressure on Pakistan government to back the American company and distance away from the Argentinean rival. The next month, US Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia, Robin Raphel, visited Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia for the same purpose.

 

Now that the Taliban regime stands dismantled, what can be the next move of the US in Afghanistan after a new, favourable government is installed in Kabul? Finding Osama, of course, remains a major objective. In September, a few days before attacks on New York, the US Energy Information Administration had reported: "Afghanistan remains a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from Central Asia to the Arabian sea. This potential includes the possible construction of pipelines through Afghanistan."

 

In his commentary, Monbiot of The Guardian says, "Given that the Bush administration is dominated by former oil industry executives (Cheney was head of the world's biggest oil service company, Halliburton; Condaleeza Rice has been on the board of Chevron; Don Evans, commerce secretary, has been CEO and chairman of an oil company), we would be foolish to suppose that a reinvigoration of these plans (oil pipelines) no longer figures in its strategic thinking."

 

Michael T. Klare, a noted American scholar, observes in his new book, Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict: "Whereas international conflict was until recently governed by political and ideological considerations, the wars of the future will largely be fought over the possession and control of vital economic goods." Oil is king in Klare's tome. As such, the Bush administration's war on terrorism is, in fact, a war for resources, and the most precious resources are oil and gas.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Return to article index