Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Jumpin' Jack Verdi, It's a Gas, Gas, Gas
Iran and the Pipelineistan Opera
The movie of the week in Brussels is: When NATO Meets Pipelineistan. Though you won't find it in any headlines, at virtually every recent NATO summit Washington has been maneuvering to involve reluctant Europeans ever more deeply in the business of protecting Pipelineistan. This is already happening, of course, in Afghanistan, where a promised pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India, the TAPI pipeline, has not even been built. And it's about to happen at the borders of Europe, again around pipelines that have not yet been built.
If you had to put that Euro part of Pipelineistan into a formula, you might do so this way: Nabucco (pushed by the U.S.) versus South Stream (pushed by Russia). Be patient. You'll understand in a moment.
At the most basic level, it's a matter of the West yet again trying, in the energy sphere, to bypass Russia. For this to happen, however -- and it wouldn't hurt if you opened the nearest atlas for a moment -- Europe desperately needs to get a handle on Central Asian energy resources, which is easy to say but has proven surprisingly hard to do. No wonder the NATO Secretary General's special representative, Robert Simmons, has been logging massive frequent-flyer miles to Central Asia over these last few years.
Just under the surface of an edgy entente cordiale between the European Union (EU) and Russia lurks the possibility of a no-holds-barred energy war -- Liquid War, as I call it. The EU and the U.S. are pinning their hopes on a prospective 3,300-kilometer-long, $10.7 billion pipeline dubbed Nabucco. Planning for it began way back in 2004 and construction is finally expected to start, if all goes well (and it may not), in 2010. So if you're a NATO optimist, you hope that natural gas from the Caspian Sea, maybe even from Iran (barring the usual American blockade), will begin flowing through it by 2015. The gas will be delivered to Erzurum in Turkey and then transported to Austria via Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary.
Why, you might ask, is the pipeline meant to save Europe named for a Verdi opera? Well, Austrian and Turkish energy executives happened to see the opera together in Vienna in 2002 while discussing their energy dilemmas, and the biblical plight of the Jews exiled by King Nabucco (Nebuchadnezzar), a love story set amid a ferocious struggle for freedom and power, swept them away. Still, it's a stretch to turn aluminum tubes into dramatic characters.
Of course, the operatic theater here isn't really in the tubing, it's in the politics and strategic implications that surround the pipeline. In Eastern Europe, for instance, Nabucco is seen not as a European economic or energy project, but as a creature of Washington, just like the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline from Azerbaijan to Turkey that President Bill Clinton and his crew backed so vigorously in the 1990s and which was finally finished in 2005. For those who have never believed the Cold War is over -- the Eastern Europeans among them -- once again it's the good guys (the West) against the commies... sorry, the Russians... at an energy-rich OK Corral.
The Great Borderless Gas Bazaar
Russia's answer to Nabucco is the 1,200-kilometer-long, $15 billion South Stream pipeline, also scheduled to be finished in 2015; it is slated to carry Siberian natural gas under the Black Sea from Russia to Bulgaria. From Bulgaria, one branch of the pipeline would then run south through Greece to southern Italy while the other would run north through Serbia and Hungary towards northern Italy.
Now, add another pipeline to the picture, the $9.1 billion Nord Stream that will soon enough snake from Western Russia under the Baltic Sea to Germany, which already imports 41.5% of its natural gas from Russia. The giant Russian energy firm Gazprom holds a controlling 51% of Nord Stream stock; the rest belongs to German and Dutch companies. The chairman of the board is none other than former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.
Put this all together and Russia, with its pipelines running in all directions and firmly embedded in Europe, spells trouble for Nabucco's future and frustration for Washington's New Great Game plans to contain the Russian energy juggernaut. And that's without even mentioning Ukhta which, chances are, you've never heard of. If you aren't in the energy business, why should you have? After all, it's a backwater village in Russia's autonomous republic of Komi, 350 kilometers from the Arctic Circle. Built by forced labor, it was once part of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's Gulag archipelago. By 2030, however, you'll know its name. By then, a pipeline from remote Ukhta will be flooding Europe with natural gas and the village will be one of Nord Stream's key transit nodes.
While Nabucco as well as South Stream remain virtual, Nord Stream is a Terminator on the run. By 2010, it will be tunneling under the Baltic Sea heading for Germany. By 2011, it should be delivering the goods and a second pipe -- 12 meters wide, 100,000 tubes long -- will be under construction to double its capacity by 2014. Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller pulls no punches: this, he says, will be "the safest and most modern pipeline in the world."
How can Verdi lovers possibly compete? In the middle of a global recession, Gazprom is spending at least $20 billion to conquer Europe via Nord and South Stream. The strategy is a killer: pump gas under the sea directly to Europe, avoiding messy transit routes across troublesome countries like Ukraine. No wonder Gazprom, which today controls 26% of the European gas market, is expected to have a 33% share by 2020.
In other words, in many ways, the Nabucco versus South Stream energy war already looks settled. Nabucco is, at best, likely to be a secondary pipeline, incapable, as Washington once hoped, of breaking the EU away from energy dependence on Russia.
Brussels, predictably, is in its usual multilingual policy mess. Most bureaucrats at its monster, directive-churning body, the European Commission, publicly bemoan the "pipeline war." On the other hand, Ona Jukneviciene, chairwoman of the committees at the European Parliament dealing with Central Asia, admits that Nabucco cannot be the only option.
As for Reinhard Mitschek, managing director of the Nabucco consortium, he tries to put a brave face on things when he stresses, "we will transport Russian gas, Azeri gas, Iraqi gas." As for the top European official on energy matters, Andris Piebalgs, he can't help being a pragmatist: "We'll continue to work with Russia because Russia has energy resources."
From a business point of view, it's tough to argue with South Stream's selling points. Unlike Nabucco, it will offer cheaper, all-Russian natural gas that won't have to transit through potential war zones, and while Nabucco will always deliver limited amounts of Caspian natural gas to market, South Stream, given Russian resources, will have plenty of room to increase its output.
The fact is that, as of now, Nabucco still has no guaranteed sources of gas. In order for the gas to come from energy-rich Turkmenistan, to take but one example, the Turkmen leadership would have to break a deal they've already made with Russia, which now buys all of that country's export gas. There's no way that Moscow is likely to let one of the former Soviet Republics do that easily. In addition, both Russia and Iran could well be capable of blocking any pipeline straddling the floor of the Caspian Sea.
Gazprom will pay to build South Stream, and then distribute and sell gas it already controls to Europe; Nabucco, on the other hand, has to rely on a messy consortium of six countries (Austria, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, and Germany) simply to finance one-third of its prospective costs, and then convince wary international bankers to shell out the rest.
The Pentagon does the Black Sea
So what does Washington want out of this mess? That's easy. Rewind to then-prospective Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her Senate confirmation hearings on January 13, 2009. There, she decried Europe's dependence on Russian natural gas and issued an urgent call for "investments in the Trans-Caspian energy sector." Think of it as a signal: The new Obama administration would be as committed to Nabucco as the Bush administration had been.
What is never spelled out is why. Enter the Black Sea, that crucial geo-strategic stage where Europe meets the Middle East, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. Enter, thus, Bulgaria, home to a new Pentagon air base in Bezmer, one of six new strategic bases being built outside the U.S. and as potentially important to Washington's future games as the stalwart air bases in Incirlik, Turkey, and Aviano, Italy have been in the past. (Aviano was the key U.S./NATO base for the bombing of the Bosnian Serbs in 1995 and the 78-day bombing campaign against Serbia in 1999.)
With the Pentagon's bases already creeping within a stone's throw of Southwest and Central Asia, it doesn't take a genius to imagine the role Bezmer might play in any future attack on Iran (something the Russian defense establishment has already taken careful note of). With both Romania and Bulgaria now part of NATO, Article 5 of the alliance's charter now applies. NATO can take action "in the event of crises which jeopardize Euro-Atlantic stability and could affect the security of Alliance members."
In this way, Pipelineistan meets the American Empire of Bases.
Young Turks and Wily Russians
Why is everyone so damn hooked on Central Asian oil and gas? Elshad Nasirov, deputy chairman of the state-owned Azerbaijani oil company SOCAR, sums the addiction up succinctly enough: "This is the place where there is oil and gas in abundance. It is not Arab, not Persian, not Russian, and not OPEC."
It's the Caspian and, unfortunately for Europe, the region could, in energy terms, turn out to be not the caviar for which it's renowned but so many rotten fish eggs. No one knows, after all, whether the EU will ever be able to buy Iranian gas via Nabucco. No one knows whether the Central Asian "stans" have enough gas to supply Russia, China, and Turkey, not to mention India and Pakistan. No one knows whether any of their leaders will have the nerve to renege on their deals with Gazprom.
Ever since a 2008 British study determined that Turkmenistan may have natural gas reserves second only to Russia on the planet, the European Commission has been on a no-holds-barred tear to lure that country into delivering some of its future gas directly to Europe -- and not through the Russian pipeline system either. Turkmenistan's inscrutable leader, the spectacularly named Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov, just has to say the word, but despite the claims of EU officials that he has agreed to send some gas Europe-wards, he's never offered a public word of confirmation. No wonder: with Nabucco unbuilt and a pipeline from his country to China still under construction, Turkmenistan can play Pipelineistan games only with Russia and Iran. In fact, Russia essentially controls the flow of Turkmen gas for the next 15 years.
Should Gurbanguly someday say the magic word -- and assuming the Russians don't throw a monkey wrench into the works -- he can marry Turkey, as the key transit country, with the EU and let them all sing Verdi till the sheep come home. In the meantime, angst is the name of the game in Europe (and so in Washington).
A declassified dossier from the FSB, the Russian heir to the KGB, is adamant: considering Nabucco's shortcomings, "Russia will remain the primary supplier of energy to Europe for the foreseeable future." Call it a matter of having your gas and processing it, too. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has been making the point for years. If Europe tries to snub it, Russia will simply build its own liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants, to facilitate storage and transport, and sell its LNG all over the world.
Anyway it's worth paying attention to what the St. Petersburg State Mining Institute (where Putin earned his doctorate) has to say. According to the institute, Russia has only 20 years' worth of its own natural gas reserves left. Since Russia plans to sell up to 40% of its gas abroad, "Russian" gas may in the future actually mean Central Asian gas. All the more reason for the Russians to make sure that those massive Turkmen and other reserves flow north, not west.
Whatever Washington thinks, the Europeans know that energy independence from Russia is, in reality, inconceivable. Bottom line when it comes to natural gas: Europe needs everything -- Nord Stream, South Stream, and Nabucco. The bulk of the natural gas in this Pipelineistan maze may well turn out to be Central Asian anyway and a substantial part could be Iranian, if the Obama administration ever normalizes relations with Iran.
That, then, is the current state of play in the European wing of Pipelineistan. Russia seems to have virtually guaranteed its status as the top gas supplier to Europe for the foreseeable future. But that brings us to Turkey, a key regional power for both the U.S. and the EU. As President Obama has recognized, Turkey is both a real and a metaphorical bridge between the Christian and Muslim worlds. It is also an ideal transit country for carrying non-Russian gas to Europe and is now playing its own suitably complex Pipelineistan game.
Chances are that, like Ukhta in far off Siberia, you've never heard of Yumurtalik either. It's a fishing port squeezed between the Mediterranean Sea and the Taurus mountains, very close to Ceyhan, the terminal for two key nodes of Pipelineistan: the Kirkuk-Ceyhan pipeline from Iraq and the monster BTC pipeline. Turkey wants to turn Yumurtalik-Ceyhan into nothing less than the Rotterdam of the Mediterranean.
Even as it dreams of future EU membership, however, Turkey worries about antagonizing Moscow. And yet, being aboard the Nabucco Express and already fully committed to the functioning BTC pipeline puts the country on a potential collision course with Russia, its largest trading partner. Of course, this does not displease Washington.
On the other hand, the Turkish leadership draws ever closer to Iran, which provides 38% of Turkey's oil and 25% of its natural gas. Ankara and Tehran also have geopolitical affinities (especially in fighting Kurdish separatism). Together, they offer the best alternative to the Caucasus (Azerbaijan, Georgia) in terms of supplying Europe with Iranian natural gas. All this, of course, drives Washington nuts.
Needless to say, the Nabucco consortium itself would kill to have Iran as a gas supplier for the pipeline. They are also familiar with realpolitik: this could happen only with a Washington-blessed solution to the Iranian nuclear dossier. Iran, for its part, knows well how to seduce Europe. Mohammad-Reza Nematzadeh, managing director of the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), has insisted Iran is Europe's "sole option" for the success of Nabucco.
Is Russia just watching all this gas go by? Of course not. In October 2007, Putin signed a key agreement with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: If Iran cannot sell its gas to Nabucco -- a likelihood given the turbulence of American domestic politics and its foreign policy -- Russia will buy it. Translation: Iranian gas could end up, like Central Asian gas, heading for Europe as more "Russian" gas. With its European and Iranian policies at cross-purposes, Washington will not be amused.
When Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan threatened to "rethink Nabucco" if the tricky negotiations for Turkey to enter the EU drag on forever, EU leaders got the message (as much as France and Germany may be against a "Europe without borders"). Pragmatically, most EU leaders know very well that they need excellent relations with Turkey to one day have access to the Big Prize, Iranian gas; and that puts Europe's energy and EU membership inclinations at loggerheads.
Last July in Ankara, Nabucco was formally launched by an inter-governmental agreement. The representatives of Turkey, Austria, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary were there. Obama's special Eurasian envoy, Richard Morningstar (a veteran of the BTC adventure), was there as well. The Central Asian stans were not there.
But crucially, Gurbanguly, ever the showman, finally made an entrance without ever leaving Turkmenistan, (almost) uttering the magic words in a meeting with his ministers in the capital, Ashgabat, on July 10th: "Turkmenistan, staying committed to the principles of diversification of supply of its energy resources to the world markets, is going to use all available opportunities to participate in major international projects -- such as, for example, [the] Nabucco project."
At the Vienna headquarters of Nabucco the mantra remains: this is "no anti-Russian project." Still, everyone knows that Russia's leaders are eager to kill it, and not a soul from Brussels to Vienna, Washington to Ashgabat, knows how to link Central Asia to Europe via a non-Russian pipeline, at the cost of more than $10 billion, without some assurance that Turkmeni, Kazakh, Azerbaijani, and/or Iranian natural gas will be fully (or even partially) on board. Who would be foolish enough to invest that kind of money without some guarantee that hundreds of miles of aluminum tubes won't remain empty? You don't need Verdi to tell you this is one hell of a quirky plot for a global opera.

18 Comments so far
Show AllA great article. It should be apparent that Russia holds all the cards here by virtue of location and the sheer size of its landmass.
With US Influence waning and the US economy in tatters wherein it needs to borrow money from China just to finance itself , the US resorts to hard power to try and maintain influence in the region.
Thus the invasions of Afghanistan, of Iraq and the esclation of conflict with Iran.
The problem is of course the Military option is prohibitively expensive. China can funds its Military via its trade surplus with the World. Russia can fund its Military via the selling of Natural resources.
The USA, having outsourced Manufacturing and while having one of the largest land masses in the world, deficient in many resources, can only BORROW money to fund its exponentialy more expensive Military.
What is happening here is that the EU realizes it NEEDS Russia more then it needs the USA.
The USA has no resources to provide them, it has abandoned any pretense of a Moral leadership, its manufacturing base outsourced its consumers in debt.
And as Afghanistan shows, its Military pointless.
Sioux Rose
GW NORTH: As usual, incisive analysis. A number of coalitions of the not-exactly willing (to do the US official bidding) are forming in a number of regions. A multi-polar world may be the therapeutic device chosen by destiny to disable the beast (i.e. US under the MIC rule).
Pepe Escobar's analysis on Pipelinestan is the only way to make sense of the US obsession with its unwinnable AfPak war. Control of both countries is essential for the TAPI pipeline, and for expansion of the NABUCCO project. All this in the context of the shortly coming Peak Oil crunch.
All the contradictory official babble about what the US wants in Afghanistan only begins to make a bit of sense in this light. Also the ongoing in-fighting over what to do in Iran and how to get a regime change there is another part of this "great game"; Israel is using it as a piggy-back for support of their "existential" desire to retain military hegemony in the region.
Sioux Rose
JOHN: Your point is so glaringly true, that every time I hear another "expert" discuss the chances of bringing democracy or peace to Afghanistan, or going after Bin Laden, or what strategy McCrystal should deploy to "win" I want to gag. Haven't we all over-dosed on false pretenses after viewing (for years) the same ridiculous dancing arguments drummed onto the media stage, each one bowing after its lousy act as if the rotation of these clone numbers somehow numbed viewers as to their content? Redundant fakery masked by shock and awe, all funded by taxpayers and proof of where the nation blows (up) its treasure! The big bang is over-rated and ain't the story of Creation! It does, however, provide an apt version of Destruction (of worlds).
Yes, Escobar's enlightening.
It makes little sense to imagine that a gaggle of energy execs ever imagined that they could not have bought energy more cheaply than shooting up a few thousand miles for it.
We may need a touch of Satyagraha for this one: insofar as possible, refuse to consume the products of this.
Why build all of these pipelines when global warming is going to increase sea levels another 50 feet giving formerly landlocked countries access to the ocean?
Seriously, the concept of burning the massive natural gas reserves of Russia, Turkmenistan, Iran and the rest of the Caspian basin in the next 20 years doesn’t border on insanity, it’s full blown bat shit crazy insanity. If the steel and aluminum used to build these pipelines were instead used to make wind turbines, tidal electric generating plants, solar generating fields while at the same time rebuilding our cities and transportation systems into 21st century hi-tech-low energy consumption systems, we’d not only save natural gas we’d also be taking massive steps toward reducing global warming.
Also while natural gas is usually thought of as energy it is also used extensively to make anhydrous ammonia fertilizer which is a vital component to modern agriculture, specifically to grow corn.
Here in the Midwest we stood by and watched huge ethanol from corn plants being constructed every thirty miles along every main rail line over the last five years. These plants received huge subsidies from state and local governments to bring jobs into their jurisdictions. The ethanol industry, even though profitable back then, also received a $.51 per gallon subsidy from Uncle Sugar.
The combination of the commodities bubble in 2008 and the crashing of the economy later that year has left the ethanol industry in shambles. VeraSun, the second largest producer of ethanol filed for bankruptcy protection in Oct. 2008. The company was so bad off that it could not be reorganized and VearSun’s assets were auctioned off by the bankruptcy judge. VearSun’s ethanol plants sold for about half of what it cost to build them.
I see a similar problem with Pipelineistan’s mad rush to exploit natural gas resources at the very time when the economies of the world should be weaning themselves from energy from fossil fuels and rebuilding their economies to run on renewable fuels and sustainable resource consumption.
It should be noted that even as Russia seeks to control the World’s natural gas supply Russia is also sailing a fleet of super-icebreakers and ice breaking cargo ships across the Northern passage of the Arctic Ocean for the first time in human history. This journey is possible now only because global warming has reduced the thickness of the arctic ice pack to a fraction of what it was only a few decades ago.
Maybe Putin will corner the market on beech front property along the Arctic Ocean in Siberia too.
Sioux Rose
MADHOOSIER: Excellent post & analysis. I was thinking of earthquakes given that region and the distances these pipelines would hypothetically travel. I suppose any and all earth changes should be "on the table" and taken into consideration these days. But Mars (military "strategists") and Mammon (those who lust after profits foremost) are notably short-sighted. Your Midwest ethanol example is a testament to that. Imagine when coal is finally abandoned and all the denuded mountains become the monument to that shortsighted segment of US economic history?
It's the good guys, the Russians vs the soft on fascism types in the West, and Moscow can win simply by nuking that oll facility in Turkey with a first strike and be done with those damn weirdos. Right now Moscow has first strike policy on nuclear weapons, thus it's kick Turky's booty time, it's damn gas, gas gas! Turkey and Austria get their muscular booties kicked and democracy wins. It's about freedom and Hitlery Rodham Klanton to go to hell! Freedom next time as John Pilger has said before. Turkey isn't even a European country, with all but just the smallest part of it in Asia. The EU needs Turkey about as much as it Israel and other corrupt oppressive states such as fascist Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo all with governments run by Nazi oriented Holocaust denying swine.
AD
OK Klanton isn't Hitler, but it's better than all the US power elites calling some Third World government big wig a Hitler every damn time they want to get the USA into a war for their monetary or other material benefit.
AD
Oh preview, preview!
OK Klanton isn't Hitler, but it's better than all the US power elites calling some Third World government big wig a Hitler every damn time they want to get the USA into a war for their monetary or other material benefit.
AD
I look forward to the day when they've finally expended the fossil reserves of the earth. When fossil reserves are expended, then the massive price inflation that plagues us today will deflate back down to nothing. That's right. You're paying out your butt for college today because your home is heated with cheap fossil fuel. And when the cheap fuel is gone, college will be free again. Healthcare will be free again. Transportation will be free again. That's right. We pay the least for energy, and the most for everything else, in the "good ol USA", home sweet home.
By the way, all energy needs are covered on 1% of land area via solar thermal plants, mostly fitting on commercial rooftops, out of sight.
I already explained last week how conventional resource wars create more nuclear pollution than all nuclear plants for a 1000 years, more pollution than even small scale nuclear strikes. Nuclear power is a choice for the people to make, and they should not complain about wars, high energy prices, depressed economy or CO2... Not only that, the wrong choice turns energy into a hot political weapon and has the potential to cause WW3. Talk about a culture of suicide. Yawn.
You evidently have a bit of a problem with, either, reality or communicating.
People shouldn't complain about WARS? What are you talking about?! Some sick, rogue, gangster, terrorist government(s) attack(s) your country, massacre your population and family, destroy your environment, and you should or must not complain? Maybe it's not what you mean, but it is what can be understood of your words. So, S.V.P., excuse me if I misunderstand, but what the ... nonsense are you talking about?!
I'll guess that you either misstated this or that you're an idiot who should go out and buy a box of popcorn, and head to your nearest movie theatre to see what fantasy is playing today.
Otherwise, I agree that resource wars, for energy, forest and mining resources, for energy and mining resource exploration's very polluting and deforesting on a HUGE scale are definitely unhealthy, to say the least; while resources like land for agri. and water at least can be exploited without serious environmental damage, except when deforesting on a huge scale only to do agri. that shouldn't be done, f.e.). This is all VERY damaging to the natural environment and (therefore) ourselves, BUT radiological poisoning (for which the half-life is over 4bn years) is not to be treated as less important. We haven't seen anywhere near even 1% of the radiological poisoning impact on Iraq that's going to happen, yet there are photographs showing a variety of EXTREME deformities this poisoning causes among children, who'll surely continue to increase in number; and if it impacts humans, then count on it also impacting other animals. Nuclear BADLY screws up DNA, etc.!
We receive AWFULLY little information on the radiological poisoning in Iraq, as well as poisoning from other extremely toxic fallout from the war there, but there occasionally are some articles and one I read over the past year reports based on what some Iraqi doctors working in some hospitals in Iraq have to say. The rate of serious deformities is apparently high. Meanwhile, we get very seldom and little information about this.
We also have some rather horrifying pictures from Afghanistan, few, but purportedly real and FRIGHTENING pictures of little children poisoned ...; at least purportedly due to the U.S. and U.K. use of D.U. I can't prove whether all of these extreme-deformity pictures are related specifically to DU, but radiology has long been known to mess up DNA, etc., VERY badly. We have to wear lead-filled protection against X-rays and radiological poisoning's likely no safer.
This is just D.U., for we know that wars cause a lot of other very toxic pollution, but you say people shouldn't complain (care) about wars?! It must be a misstatement.
And this is not to say that I'm against Iran using nuclear capabilities to generate energy, for I can't demand this of Iran without also demanding it of all other countries, which is more dreaming than only pipe-dreaming is. The U.S., Israel, some European countries, and even Canada, all use nuclear means of generating energy and are all supremely criminal in their threats against Iran, which is co-signatory to and abides by the NPT. There is absolutely NO justification for the threats and other actions of the U.S., Canada, European countries and Israel against Iran regarding nuclear ... anything. These other countries have absolutely no valid base upon which to stand for even only pointing fingers at Iran in this regard. I won't call on Iran to not pursue nuclear R&D [whatever] the purpose is; weapons or energy. Instead, everyone has to abide by the same rule, or else give me a good pipe with some good herb and I'll head off to the fields for a little R&R while you all hypocritically feud.
I do not have a problem with Iran's nuclear programmes, known and still unknown (if there still are any that are unknown to the world), for even if Iran had a secret nuclear weapons programme, then I would find it very or totally incredible that this would be for any other purpose than for deterring attacks from the U.S., Israel, and so on. Iran has the right to be able to be armed in a way that deters otherwise potential attackers from attacking! All countries have this right!
Iranian leadership, as much as I oppose some things they do in Iran, like lapidating female victims of rape, f.e., is not going to wage war on others. And Iran does not have a history of waging wars on others; not significantly anyway! My gripes about Iran are only with respect to Iran, internally. It's a horror to lapidate rape victims because they're supposedly a "dishonour" to their families. Those are SICK families, so [educate] them and don't punish the victims! Our governments, however, have no real moral base upon which to stand for preaching to Iran; I just speak as an individual human being, non-partisan, neutral human being caring about others' lives and rights.
Iran has NOT threatened Israel. Israeli government should be efaced from Earth, but this should also happen with the governments of the U.S., Canada, some U.K. countries, esp. bitch government England, France, and so on, but this should happen without wars on these countries.
Now, what fantasy is playing at the nearest theatre near you? After all, I dream about the disappearance of our present governments and this isn't happening anywhere near soon enough.
I understand that we live in stressful times but you are going over the top. I am OK with Iran's enrichment program, in fact I couldn't care less about it. I'm not for wars, quite the opposite, I was suggesting how to avoid them. My point was that developing nuclear energy would make all these wars and bickering pointless... Whatever, I'm glad I provided you with an opportunity to talk to yourself for a while.
"Talk about a culture of" outdated people. Yes, yawn. CO2? Stop deforesting the Earth's major forests and they'll then handle most of the recycling of co2. And the sun's apparently responsible for much of the climate change (on Earth and other planets of our solar system) to boot. Economic woes? Lower the cost of living, accordingly; it's not likely going to happen, but is one mathematical solution. High energy prices, people shouldn't complain? You must be a spoiled brat.
People have a right to complain when their supposedly democratic government is turning out to be ever more contrary to democracy and society, being sociopathic (at best). F.e., in Quebec, Canada, there's Hydro Quebec, which is supposed to be owned by the government, that is, the population of Quebec, and this business apparently rakes in over $4bn a year, but the present political "leadership" of the government, of a province of around 7mn for population, claims it's necessary to increase hydro-electricity costs. Meanwhile, the economy continues to be on the decline, many jobs lost, the present PM (a real asshole, albeit this also describes most of the province's and most other politicians, but this doesn't excuse him or any of them at all) eliminated import tariffs back in January 2005 or 2006 (I believe), MANY jobs lost due to competition with China's manufacturers (and of course Wal-Mart), etcetera. The government's on course with causing more people to become like Americans in terms of homes, mortgages, ..., and wants to unnecessarily increase energy costs.
It's not as bad as in the U.S., yet. You can drive around Sherbrooke, Quebec, and see plenty of financially well-to-do people driving expensive vehicles, etcetera, here, but there are many other people here to consider and they or we aren't as visible as the wealthier are. What we see when driving around, going through the main shopping malls, is deceiving; and the small or tiny city gets flooded with students during fall and winter and they take up a lot of jobs that aren't available to unemployed locals who need not only jobs, but full-time ones.
Wherever people starve due to socio-economic and political injustices, these people have the right to complain alright. Only brats can say that the contrary's true.
People have the right to complain, as long as they or we do what we can to be responsible citizens. What we don't have the right to do is to sit idly on our asses and pretend that there's never anything wrong that we should contribute opposition to, until we become victims; at which point we should not be cared about by others at all and others should let us STARVE. We need to be responsible citizens and this means doing what we can to try to correct social, economic, political, ... wrongs. We can lose, we usually do, but need to try to contribute to needed corrections.
My contribution? I can't contribute money, but freely speak with people I come across, talk with them about important issues, get their views, learn about what they've learned, and like with a woman a few days ago while bussing around town and tonight with some stranger on the way to a convenience store, they tell me things contrary to the way things really are and I fill them in on how things really are and should be. I've read a LOT since fall 2002, spent many weeks, months, years, reading, learning, analysing what I read, ... full-time, and I can't change the political government directly, but can talk to individual people and small groups. They see that I am not someone to back down; nearly always being able to provide "alternative" views and, therefore, information, while being able to explain why we can't really count on regular "news" media for truly informing us. My bases are always sound, and firm. Why? Simple. The first response to give to any threat of violence or injustice, or potential injustice, very simply is 'NO!'. Like a jury needing to have real proof before being able to pass judgement against someone who's accused and they're judging the alleged conduct of, we can never say anything but 'NO!' about threats of violence or potential injustice.
It was "easier than making pie" to oppose the Clinton threat against Kosovo. The same applies with U.S. Gulf wars I and II, and the war in Afghanistan, as well as the act-of-war of aggression against Haiti in 2004. 'No!' was the immediate and a very easy position to take; and nothing else was fitting.
We don't have a right to be [irresponsible] citizens, but we do have a right to complain ... about many important issues that are due to human corruption. We don't have a real right to complain about climate change if it's not due to human activity at all, but we have a right to be concerned; and if it's at all due to human activity, then we have a right to complain about the related negligence that goes uncorrected. Wars are human activities. We have a right to complain about them!
Nice monologue. I don't do any "deforestation", ask the Brazilian government about that. Instead of talking to yourself, you could read my comment... Nuclear energy is locally operated and quite independent of any "stans". Without an alternative energy source, there will be high prices and depressed economies or there will be energy wars as those we have now. Making a choice presupposes accepting responsibility for its consequences. I did not deny the right of people to complain, but complaining when they themselves made the choice is pointless. It's better not to do it, saves some wasted efforts. It's not apparent from your comment that you understood the connection between choosing not to develop nuclear energy and the inevitable consequences of that choice.
Of course there are other factors, corruption being the most important - people should complain as loud as they can about it.
what i find really tragically funny about the USA in this whole "energy game" is :
IN NONE of those "energy rich" regions - be they RUSSIA's OWN national resources, or its former satellites like turkmenistan, kazakhstan..or its closer Allies like iran, or "conduits" such as Serbia, Turkey, and the northern baltic sea former "Soviet" influence countries --
IN NONE of those has the USA - from across the oceans - ANY of those POSSESSIONS - in part or in whole - and HAS NO historical or cultural ties or geographical ties with thsoe regions and countries.
REMEMBER that regardless of teh CHANGES in national borders in those regions - the borders themselves are STILL CREATIONS of the modern world, specifically in THIS energy game case:
very RECENTLY in terms of the thousands of years of intercommerce, rivalries, balancing acts etc....
REGARDLESS of these things -- the GEOGRAPHICAL reality STATES that:
a COUNTRY INSERTS ITSELF as a "game player"
in a region that IT has NOT BUSINESS in being part of THAT game for very OBVIOUS reasons:
IT DOESN'T OWN a SINGLE DROP of those energy resources!
whether or not Russia plays it to its interest , obviously, just as other coutnries in the region do -
IT IS THEY that HAVE those resources...THEIR people OWN those resources....
THEIR GAMES are THEIR games...in relation to europe, the east, and the world. THEY are sellers and OWNERS of THEIR resources.
WHAT IS THE USA THERE?
it's an INTERLOPER that wants to MUSCLE IN on
STUFF that it has NO ownership or even ANY historical or cultural or regional connection with...
in other words:
THIEVERY.
plain and simple.
the USA wants to be a "POWER , ENERGY GAME PLAYER" now and in the future?
DEVELOP ITS OWN ENERGY RESOURCES! FIND its OWN gas and oil and solar power and water power in ITS own borders , package them and market them in the open market
JUST AS RUSSIA, IRAN and others DO! because THAT's THEIR business and THAT"s THEIR resource.
this is like the USA wanting to RIDE the "energy train" on resources and wealth it doesn't HAVE ANY OWNERSHIP of...and tries to do it by means of "access and control" through
BUILDING PIPELINES!!!
what NONSENSe!
but then , in the words of MADeleine Albright in the 1990's when the USSR had just collapsed and was in chaos...:
"IT'S SO UNFAIR!!!!...THAT ONE country has all those rich resources....something ought to be done about it"
she was REFERING OF COURSE -- to RUSSIA and her environs!
in other words:
that "something"
means
WAR - THEFT of other regions resources and to control THEM
which that USA has NONE OF!
what does one call THAT?
it is called THIEVERY!
but then -- it's NOT so different from the USA's "BIRTH" is it?
it , after all, STOLE LAND from native indians and mexicans....
just for BEGINNERS!
and its "pipelinistan"
is MORE of the SAME...very "american way".
This is an excellent article by Pepe Escobar and Tom Engelhardt's introduction in the original copy is, as always, worth reading, also.
The following two videos are related presentations by Pepe Escobar.
"The Afghan chessboard: The real meaning of the Afghan elections" (7:40), TheRealNews, Aug 26 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN5a9WomVqs
"Iran/Russia: a deadly embrace", part 1 of 4 (6:23), TheRealNews, Aug 5 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uowvTCtZws
Part 2 (5:50),
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UY_rxOlly4
Part 3, "Iran/China and the New Silk Road" (5:05),
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfHtFzaqCqs
Part 4 (7:06),
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDhyj_Wr59Y
Parts 3 and 4 have the different subtitle included above, and it's due to this difference in the Youtube page titles that I provided the links for the four parts. Parts 1 and 2 have the elections-related subtitle, while parts 3 and 4 are about "the New Silk Road", Pipelineistan ....
Arun Gupta, editor or an editor of Indymedia, provided a video-taped presentation for which a link was recently posted by CD and it's worth listening to; however, while he seems to support what Pepe Escobar says, Arun Gupta later says that oil or energy resources are a small part of the reason for the GWoT wars. I agree that they're not the whole story, for that's really about the U.S. elites trying to make their puppet U.S. government the superpower of the world and to keep it that way, for these "elites" to be able to control economics on the global scale with greater ability than they've achieved so far. But like Arun Gupta initially says, this involves controlling the global energy market, and I fully agree that this is true. It's his later apparent watering-down that gives rise to the question of what he precisely has in mind at that or this point.
It's worth adding the link for his talk and he's clearly (and unfortunately) right in questioning or criticising the so-called "anti-war movement".
"Arun Gupta asks "What Anti-War Movement?"" (30:01), Sep 24 2009
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2009/9/24/arun_gupta_asks_where_is_the_anti_war_movement
Check out articles by Rick Rozoff at www.globalresearch.ca about NATO expansion, eastward, and the U.S. missile defence systems topic (on land and sea, and ... more). If you go to his author's index at GR, then you'll find all of his articles, including (I believe) the most recent ones posted at GR.
It's all about the "Grand Chessboard" Brzezinski sort of gaming; yet it's an idea that also started much earlier. If recalling correctly, then even "Lord" (what a queer way to refer to someone who's just a human ... and schmuck, to boot) Curzon during the 19th century wrote of the so-called need for England to conquer or at least dominate Central Asia for its natural resources! Curzon is known for this or a very similar sort of view on Central Asia or all of Asia, anyway.
As Arun Gupta asks ..., Ralph Nader asks "what anti-economic collapse, banksters, ... movement?", too, and there's a common denominator between the two; a complacent (and/or incompetent), idle, ... population, and unqualified "movement" leadership.
"Ralph Nader on the G-20, Healthcare Reform, Mideast Talks and His First Work of Fiction, "Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!"" (around 34:20), Sep 21 2009
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/21/ralph_nader_on_the_g20_healthcare
Listen [carefully] to the solution that Ralph Nader recommends for the general population. It's a solution in economic respects that he specifically speaks of, but because of what essentially underlies it, it's also a solution about U.S. politics and corporatism when it comes to U.S. wars. That is, we need [real] movement, real activism, no more phony and incompetent, entertainment stuff, but REAL substance. We need a truly active, energetic and well organized population. Become anarchists, peaceful ones. If done well, then there's no need for acts of violence; some material destruction, perhaps, but no violence.
Like he says about the title of the book, "Only the rich can save us", it's in quotes; but if the general population continues to be as it's been for too long now, then the quotes evidently need to be removed. Then the rich will need to save the lemming populace from a mass "suicidal" march, or else we'll all "go down". And it's doubtful that the rich will do this, even if some would like to. Ralph does not pretend otherwise. Like he says, the book's fiction, yet meant to give a real warning about the population needing to get ACTIVE and competently so; and he well explains how to do this. His solution's not logically difficult, but clearly requires serious dedication, steadfastness, competence, good will, ....
We need true, real and organized revolutionaries! No more falsies and no more incompetent "leaders" (when they're not simply false or phony, to begin with). F.e., UFPJ "leadership" couldn't even be honest and true enough to oppose the re-election or election of schmuck Joseph Lierberman in Connecticut, "for crying out loud!". Beware of phonies, incompetents, and "wolves disguising themselves as sheep (and/or shepherds)".
We need real revolutionary movement, but as long as people continue to idiotically choose who to support and oppose, we're not going to achieve the needed movement, much less its full potential. We need solarity, real revolution (so far, not found in the U.S., Canada, U.K., etcetera, but needing to happen). NO MORE co-opting for so-called "lesser" evils instead of the so-called greater (that is, worse) ones, and it's comical (darkly) that anyone would state such a distinction when none are capable of proving that the lesser is indeed lesser (no one has proven such a claim is true, so far!).
This is what both Arun Gupta and Ralph Nader both really say in these above videos. REVOLUTION! Anarchist (peaceful) revolution. [Principled]!