Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiAfghanistan and the New Great Game
Prized pipeline route could explain West's stubborn interest in poor, remote land
Why is Afghanistan so important?
A glance at a map and a little knowledge of the region suggest that the real reasons for Western military involvement may be largely hidden.
Afghanistan is adjacent to Middle Eastern countries that are rich in oil and natural gas. And though Afghanistan may have little petroleum itself, it borders both Iran and Turkmenistan, countries with the second and third largest natural gas reserves in the world. (Russia is first.)
Turkmenistan is the country nobody talks about. Its huge reserves of natural gas can only get to market through pipelines. Until 1991, it was part of the Soviet Union and its gas flowed only north through Soviet pipelines. Now the Russians plan a new pipeline north. The Chinese are building a new pipeline east. The U.S. is pushing for "multiple oil and gas export routes." High-level Russian, Chinese and American delegations visit Turkmenistan frequently to discuss energy. The U.S. even has a special envoy for Eurasian energy diplomacy.
Rivalry for pipeline routes and energy resources reflects competition for power and control in the region. Pipelines are important today in the same way that railway building was important in the 19th century. They connect trading partners and influence the regional balance of power. Afghanistan is a strategic piece of real estate in the geopolitical struggle for power and dominance in the region.
Since the 1990s, Washington has promoted a natural gas pipeline south through Afghanistan. The route would pass through Kandahar province. In 2007, Richard Boucher, U.S. assistant secretary of state, said: "One of our goals is to stabilize Afghanistan," and to link South and Central Asia "so that energy can flow to the south." Oil and gas have motivated U.S. involvement in the Middle East for decades. Unwittingly or willingly, Canadian forces are supporting American goals.
The proposed pipeline is called TAPI, after the initials of the four participating countries (Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India). Eleven high-level planning meetings have been held during the past seven years, with Asian Development Bank sponsorship and multilateral support (including Canada's). Construction is planned to start next year.
The pipeline project was documented at three donor conferences on Afghanistan in the past three years and is referenced in the 2008 Afghan Development Plan. Canada was represented at these conferences at the ministerial level. Thus, our leaders must know. Yet they avoid discussion of the planned pipeline through Afghanistan.
The 2008 Manley Report, a foundation for extending the Canadian mission to 2011, ignored energy issues. It talked about Afghanistan as if it were an island, albeit with a porous Pakistani border. Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he "will withdraw the bulk of the military forces" in 2011. The remaining troops will focus mostly on "reconstruction and development." Does that include the pipeline?
Pipeline rivalry is slightly more visible in Europe. Ukraine is the main gateway for gas from Russia to Europe. The United States has pushed for alternate pipelines and encouraged European countries to diversify their sources of supply. Recently built pipelines for oil and gas originate in Azerbaijan and extend through Georgia to Turkey. They are the jewels in the crown of U.S. strategy to bypass Russia and Iran.
The rivalry continues with plans for new gas pipelines to Europe from Russia and the Caspian region. The Russians plan South Stream - a pipeline under the Black Sea to Bulgaria. The European Union and U.S. are backing a pipeline called Nabucco that would supply gas to Europe via Turkey. Nabucco would get some gas from Azerbaijan, but that country doesn't have enough. Additional supply could come from Turkmenistan, but Russia is blocking a link across the Caspian Sea. Iran offers another source, but the U.S. is blocking the use of Iranian gas.
Meanwhile, Iran is planning a pipeline to deliver gas east to Pakistan and India. Pakistan has agreed in principle, but India has yet to do so. It's an alternative to the long-planned, U.S.-supported pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan and India.
A very big game is underway, with geopolitics intruding everywhere. U.S. journalist Steven LeVine describes American policy in the region as "pipeline-driven." Other countries are pushing for pipeline routes, too. The energy game remains largely hidden; the focus is on humanitarian, development and national security concerns. In Canada, Afghanistan has been avoided in the past two elections.
With the U.S. surge underway and the British ambassador to Washington predicting a decades-long commitment, it's reasonable to ask: Why are the U.S. and NATO in Afghanistan? Could the motivation be power, a permanent military bridgehead, access to energy resources?
Militarizing energy has a high price in dollars, lives and morality. There are long-term consequences for everyone. Canadian voters want to know: Why is Afghanistan so important?
27 Comments so far
Show AllIt's Just a pipe dream that will continue our addition to foreign energy--if we put one tenth of the wasted monies into r&d for solar, tidal, wind and hydrogen--we could break this nasty habit of murdering our brothers and sisters to feed it.
Every President since Eisenhower, with the possible exceptions of Ford and Carter, have attempted to be enshrined in the American Hall Of Imperialism (AHOI)by being victorious in aggressive war/occupation: JFK (Bay of Pigs; failure), Johnson (Vietnam; failure), Nixon (Vietnam; failure), Reagan (Lebanon; failure), Bush 1, Clinton (Horn of Africa; failure), Bush 2 (Iraq; Afghanistan). Given this track record why should I be surprised that Obama wants to get into AHOI also? He will fail.
The fight is about destroying any viable Afghan sovreign entity that can put a meter on the pipelines and collect pass-through commissions.
Another good reason to leave the oil-based power structure behind. Why are our Armed Forces securing assets for oil companies? Why should our guys die for them?
Lies and greed from end to end.
The pipeline connection has been publicly known, but mostly ignored, for a bunch of years. It is good to see it repeated and updated in a mainstream newspaper. However, I would hope that a super-majority of CD readers already knew the basics of this article 5 years ago, and never forgot.
We must kill as many people as we can and sacrifice as many USans as we can to win Pipelineistan. If you don't agree, you're a yellow-bellied commie muslim terrorist traitor!
I believe that the author is on to something.
Rarely is John Foster dull.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Oil-Gas Pipelines .
Thats why we fight the terrorists, all of them, everyone in the middle east who stands in the way of the pipelines are terrorists.
DOI
"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance."
Harper is running a wayward minority government and is desperately trying to lick US boots in the hopes that it may prolong his mis-government. At every occassion he gets he tries to swoon behind Obama. The persoanl cowardice of harper is known to all Canadians as he shut down the parliament last year just to avoid a VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE. Neither, he nor the goofy looking Peter MacKay have any military knownledge or expeerienec but are happy to send other peoples children to die in the Afghan meat-grinder. These self-serving politicians are disgraceful, to say the least.
The Afghan war is a lost cause and Harper's attempts to ingratiate Canada with the US by spilling Canadian blood for PIPELINEISTAN is outright evil if not criminal.
Afghanistan has proved to be the graveyard of many over-confident imperialists, NATO and its mercenaries are no expection as history unfolds.
John Manley, like Harper, is a flunkey for the US boss class.
I'm shocked that CD would post nonsense like this. The suggestion that our democratically elected government would send thousands of young people to die in foreign lands and kill thousands of innocent civilians merely to seize their resources is a preposterous and outrageous lie.
There is a reason why we are known around the world as a beacon of liberty and justice. It's because we are willing to make enormous sacrifices so our friends, the Afghan people, can enjoy the blessings of democracy. Why someday, their children can go to school and enjoy freedom fries just like our kids.
I resent the author's suggestion that we are nothing more than murderous thugs when the whole world knows we are a chosen people whose morals are superior to foreign people. I can guarantee you that even if Afghanistan had nothing to offer our corporate interests, we would still be there to help them. It's because we are special.
Well... its worked so far.
In 2007, Richard Boucher, U.S. assistant secretary of state, said: "One of our goals is to stabilize Afghanistan"
LOL! The worms will be playing Beethoven's Fifth on Boucher's bones when that happens.
I was going to post the same quote.
If Afghanistan was a stable government, the government would pull all the strings making sure to receive it's fair share.
The opposite is the reality, destabilizing the government lets the looting begin.
As with "freedom and democracy" and other such terminology of U.S. diplomatic language, one must be a part of the inner circle to understand what "stabilize" actually means. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
If interested, I believe the Yale Skull and Bones group may have a few extra copies of the insiders' dictionary.
It could not be clearer what that US Military is for.
None of these areas border the United States of America. None of these countries are a threat to the security of the United States of America.
Can you imagine China deciding that Mexico, in building a Pipeline to the Honduras, proves a national security threat and thus must be invaded to fight terrorism?
Yet the USA gets away with this the world over.
Most of us "get it" here but for the rest of the US its about them "Hating our freedom and liberties and wanting to kill our children"
"Rivalry for pipeline routes and energy resources reflects competition for power and control in the region."
Really, Mr. Foster? No kidding?
And all this time I've been thinking that we went there to deal with those "terrorists" allegedly responsible for the "9/11" incident. Or perhaps to spread "freedom and democracy." Or maybe to ensure that little girls could attend the same schools as little boys.
The possiblity of competition for power and control and that a "prized pipeline route could explain West's stubborn interest in poor, remote land" never entered my mind. Thanks so much for your (somewhat belated) insight.
Perhaps you'd now care to explain also the real reasons for supporting Israel's Zionist agenda in the Middle East. Or are they, perhaps, similar? Gee whiz!
Freedom and Democracy? Of course we spread Freedom and Democracy wherever we go. After all, death is Freedom from pain, starvation, disease, bad government, etc., and as to Democracy, what is more Democratic than the grave? All are equal there.
True. As I said in response to another comment, one needs an insider's dictionary to understand what the teminology of U.S. geopolitical "diplomacy" actually means.
Yea, the US has gotten sort of predictable. Whenever the US intervenes militarily, there is a zero percent chance it is for humanitarian reasons and a 100 percent chance the US government will claim it is primarily for humanitarian reasons.
Pipelines under the cover of Humanitarian Goals, (during the war) now that is a strategy for Ya.
Rob from the poor and give to the rich...Shows how open minded we are.
Well thanks John foster, the truth about the hidden pipelines gets hidden all the time...
Because we are so busy straightening out the lives of the people who own the land that bears our sacred pipelines.
But most assuredly, it is for commercial reasons. And where is the teabagger's outrage of using our tax dollars for private gain?
In addition to pipelines, don't forget the opium bonus.
Seeds of Terror by Gretchen Peters, 2009, Excerpt
Opium makes up between 30 and 50 percent of Afghanistan’s GDP. It’s essential to recognize the economic miracle the drug traffickers have achieved. From one of the world’s most remote and backward regions, where the transport network and infrastructure is almost completely shattered, they have managed to integrate an agricultural product into the global economy. From importing precursor chemicals to giving loans to thousands of small farmers to providing security for shipments as they move across the border, this is an organizational feat of the highest order. And it’s all about making money. Although the Taliban commanders are deep in the opium trade, they are not the masterminds. This is being run by businessmen.
http://theformofmoney.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2009/7/14/4255634.html
See Pepe Escobar's articles, "Liquid War: Postcard from Pipelineistan" at http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175050 (March 2009) and "Blue Gold, Turkmen Bashes, and Asian Grids: Pipelineistan in Conflict" at http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175071/pepe_escobar_pipelineistan_goes_af_pak (May 2009)
"From importing precursor chemicals to giving loans to thousands of small farmers to providing security for shipments as they move across the border, this is an organizational feat of the highest order. And it’s all about making money. Although the Taliban commanders are deep in the opium trade, they are not the masterminds. This is being run by businessmen."
And, no doubt the CIA. Just remember the "Golden Triangle," Air America, shipments of drugs in certain caskets returned to the States, etc. These guys know what they are doing, and also that by creating scarcity via the "war on drugs," they increase the demand and market value. You are right, they are businessmen.
Its kinda like a James Bond movie. Where the hell is he when we need um"
It was this Bush/Cheney pipe dream that launched America's last war. We're bankrupt now.
Not their pipe dream. I think Bush/Cheney were being handled by offstage players.
Like Obama is now.
Sophie Scholl-The Final Days