1update 7

UPDATESERIES

7Geo-Politics of 'Afghan War':

Great Game of Oil-Rush

The WTC Attack...Caspian Oil-Gas & Pipeline

What the US know before September 11

Testimony of Unocal Corp. before the US Govt.

Central Asia's Great Game

Russia/China & Central Asia: Oil-Rush

Iran-India-Bangladesh Natural Gas Pipeline

Kabul fall raises India's Stake

Energy a Major Factor in Afghan Conflict

Bush, Capitalism, And the War Crisis

'US Interest in Caspian Sea & Central Asia'

Hidden Agenda behind War on Terror 

Taliban, US and the Resources of Central Asia

Britain: Reports admit this is a War for Oil

Voices Against The War Cry

Voices From

The USA, Europe, Australia & Asia

 S p e c i a l  ‘

 W  S p e c

 i a l  ‘ W 

 S p e c i a l  ‘

 W  S p e c

 i a l  ‘ W 

 S p e c i a l  ‘

 W  a r’  I s s u

 e a r’ 

 I s s u e a r’  I s s u

 e a r’ 

 I s s u e a r’ 

 I s s u e

 

In Lieu Of An Introduction

[While we are going to prepare the 7th issue of Update , the Northern Alliance has captured Kabul forcing the Taliban forces to retreat. At thismoment, hectic scramble of diplomatic and multilateral processes are goingon to bring 'peace', 'order', 'rule of law' in the war-ravaged Afganistan

 from the part of the USA Govt.–the mastermind & perpetrator of genocide& devastation in Afghanistan; from the so-called allies such as the 'leaders'of EU countries, 'once-enemy-now-friend' Russia, the countriesneighbouring Afghanistan (even India) and United Nations (UN). It maybe clear to us within a few days which formation or alliance has been'authorised' to rule Afghanistan. It may also be clear within days whatmore are in store for the Afghan people in the near future.

 More than 8,000 bombs have been pounded on Afghanistan so far;thousands killed and massacred; rubbles of former wars & clashes turnedinto ashes; millions rendered homeless adding more people in the refugeecamps and so on.... We are told that this is a "war on terrorism"; thisbombardment on the civilians is to capture Osama bin Laden, a "dreadedterrorist" who is the "prime suspect" (and still he is just a "suspect", noreliable evidence could be submitted by the USA Govt!) alleged to bebehind the destruction of World Trade Centre (WTC) on 11th September;and the 'war' is also against the Talibans who "harbour terrorism".

But the motive behind the 'Afghan War' is something more. Thedeclaration of the officials of Bush govt., and the 'mainstream' writers inthe media clearly state that the goal of the war is "broader" & "wider".Follow some remarks & excerpts:

Bush declared that "there are thousands of these terrorists in more thansixty countries.... Every nation in every region now has a decision tomake. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From thisday forward, any nation in every region that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the US as hostile regime." (Quoted in Monthly Review, November, 2001)  Which are these 'rogue states'harbouring terrorism? The Economist (25.10.2001)  comments: "(T)heanti-terrorist campaign affords... to shake terrorism loose from statesponsors (by which America means Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan, NorthKorea and Cuba)." 'Secretary of Defence  Donald Ramsfeld   "warned thenation to prepare for not months, but years, of battle," according to theTimes.' (Quoted in workersworld.org) 'In, "Give War A Chance"(Philadelphia Inquirer) David Perlmutter   warns that if these states donot do Washington's bidding, they must: "Prepare for the systematicdestruction of every power plant, every oil refinery, every pipeline, everymilitary base, every government office in the entire country... the complete

 

3update 7

collapse of their economy and government for a generation."  (http:// emperors-clothes.com/analysis/afgan.htm) Such are the voices of war-mongers of the USA!

Hence, the '11th September' gives American ruling class a goldenopportunity to unleash attacks/terrors on several states known for their 'stated rivalry' against the USA. In recent past numerous air-raids,'humanitarian bombing' (!), proxy-war, interventionist warfare had beenlaunched by the USA Govt. over these 'rogue states'–from Iraq to EastTimor, from Yugoslavia to Libya, from Bosnia to Sudan... It is an opensecret now that the US imperialists had financed, armed, trained and'harboured' the 'now-notorious' Taliban forces (and Laden) to make a

 proxy-war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the eighties throughits covert and murderous agent CIA. It is the rulers of USA, whichsponsored the Islamic fundamentalism to take on the 'radical Islam' of Iran, to counter the 'communist scare' of Russia and thereby stimulatedits growth. Now the President of the USA calls for "Crusade" "evokingthe familiar Christian notion of divine retribution against sinners" andthus concealing their imperialist greed under the religious fanatism.Conversely, this call for crusade creates more breeding ground for themuslim fundamentalism.

It is to be noted that strong resentments and protests are going on inthe muslim-dominated countries against the atrocities done by the USA in

 Afghanistan. This is even recognised by many mainstream media thatmuslims of different countries have legitimate grounds of the feelings of being deceived, oppressed and dispossessed in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistanand all over in the middle East. It is also to be noted that in absence of real progressive anti-imperialist forces, this agitation tends to inclinetowards the reactionary muslim fundamentalism.

In fact, the 'terrorist' attacks on the WTC on 11th September isundoubtedly the expression of deep-seated grievences of some peoplebrought forth by any of the numerous acts of unbridled state-terrorism or oppression by the US imperialists and this singular act of 'terrorism' isnothing comparable to those in extent of damage and more significantly incontent. It is the expression of the oppressed out of hopelessness.

Thus, the history shows that the USA and its allies (and also all the'democratic' states in the world) are the "leading terrorists" in the truesense. They are the mastermind of world-wide state-terrorism against anyrevolt of the oppressed that could question its empire, its 'world order'.

 Just remember the voices: "Prepare for systematic destruction... for  generation"! Are these the voices of a 'peace-keeping' or 'peace-loving'country? We have to protest and organise ourselves against this terroristonslaught on Afghanistan masterminded by the imperialist forces led bythe USA.

 

update 74

Update is not a propagandist. So, we have restrained ourselves toanalyse the present situation in details. Only the ferocity of 'Afghan War'under hypocritical cover and lies provoke us to make a few comments. In

 fact, this situation has inspired us to work overtime for publishing Update7   within one and a half months of our sixth issue.

Update is not also a news magazine to give details about the 'AfghanWar'. Lot of reports/analysis/comments/articles are flooding in the media& magazines elaborating from different angles. Hence, we confine ourselvesto study the present 'war' from an angle which is least discussed (probablyblack-outed by the media). We devote ourselves to find the real motivebehind this 'Afghan War': the economic and geo-political basis of it i.e.,the hunger of huge oil & gas reserves in the Central Asian countries justabove Afghanistan of the giants of giant oil TNCs. We have lot of findingson it, part of which is published in this issue.

 Also we have noted that waves of protests rocked several countrieswhich are sometimes covered by Indian newspapers but very much one-sidedly (i.e, publication of the photos and reports of the protests of muslim

 population only). Actually the protests occurred transcend religious, racial,colour barriers in many advanced countries (not excepting severaldeveloping/third world countries), even in the USA and even from the very

 first day after 11th September. In this issue of Update we have tried tocover these protests as widely as possible. – Update ]

 America and Britain – has imposed on the suffering people of Iraq for morethan a decade, causing the deaths of half a million children under the age

of five.That's more deaths of infants every month than the number killed in the

World Trade Center. According to an internal UN report, covering a five-month period, 41 per 

cent of the casualties are civilians. In northern Iraq, I met a woman whosehusband and four children were among the deaths listed in the report. He

was a shepherd, who was tending his sheep with his elderly father and hischildren when two planes attacked them, each making a sweep. It was an

open valley; there were no military targets nearby."I want to see the pilot who did this," said the widow at the graveside of 

her entire family. For them, there was no service in St Paul's Cathedral withthe Queen in attendance; no rock concert with Paul McCartney.

The tragedy of the Iraqis, and the Palestinians, and the Afghanis is a truththat is the very opposite of their caricatures in much of the Western media.Far from being the terrorists of the world, the overwhelming majority of theIslamic peoples of the Middle East and south Asia have been its victims –victims largely of the West's exploitation of precious natural resources in or 

near their countries. [John Pilger, Z Mag]

 

Geo-politics of ‘Afghan War': Great

Game of Oil-Rush

[Afghanistan is a landlocked country bordering Pakistan and Iran. Justabove it there are five break-away muslim-dominated countries from former Soviet Union–Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tazikistan, Kirghiziastan &

 Kazakstan  most of which are full of abundant natural resources such asoil and gas. Afghanistan is also an important gateway to the all-importantCaspian Sea which is floating on oil & gas resources. (See map 1)

Thus, Afghanistan has immense strategic importance to foreign rulers from time immemorial. In the eighties it was invaded and occupied by theSoviet Union rulers who wanted to reach warm water of the Arabian Sea.

 After the retreat of Soviet Union and its breaking apart, with all the newly formed Central Asian countries (including new European states: Azarbaizan, Armenia, Goergia on the western flank of the Caspian Sea), Afghanistan occupy immense importance in the eyes of the multinationalcompanies, the oil barons and also their host countries, the USA, Russia,Iran, China, Turkey and a few rich European countries.

In the late nineties, the biggest oil TNCs (such as Exxon, Mobil,Chevron, British Petroleum etc.) scrambled to make inroads into the oilexploration and marketing business in the states surrounding Caspian Sea.With them, several oil & construction companies, such as UNOCALCorporation  of the USA made agreements with many of these countriesto make  pipe-lines  for the transportation of oil & gas to the markets of Europe, Asia and the USA. This is a 'Great Game' of oil politics which isshaping the present and future of the Central Asian countries as well asof Afghanistan. Behind the veil of 'War on Terror' there are stories of 'Oil-Rush' which are presented here.

 At first, we present here excerpt of an article which presents us the oil- perspective of the 'Afghan War' – Update]

The WTC Attack...Caspian Oil & Gas and the

 Afghanistan: Pipeline Connection

In the sound and fury of media coverage following the World TradeCenter attack, I have yet to see any serious examination of theeconomic forces working behind the scenes in the Middle East and specifically South Asia and Afghanistan. This in the United States,where every up and down of the stock market makes headlines everyday, and we have TV channels devoted exclusively to economicactivity.

Most of us know that the Middle East is a center of activity for 

4

 

update 76

world oil production. Some of us have heard about the Caspian Sea,and the touted possibilities for great oil resources  there. But fewwould think that rocky, war torn Afghanistan might be part of thisenergy production picture. Yet it most certainly is.   And theinformation about Afghanistan's role is readily available on the World Wide Web to anyone who wants to investigate. Indeed, much of theinformation comes from US government sources like the Voice of America.

Michael Klare, author of the book "Resource Wars", which has amajor focus on the Caspian region,  (...) is the Director of the FiveCollege Program in Peace and World Security Studies based atHampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts. In his book, Klareargues that it is not only the United States that is preparing for resource conflicts. He contends that all regional powers are focusingincreasingly on how to protect or enlarge their access to vital resourcesover the next generation.

Klare tells that vast energy reserves in Central Asia and theCaucasus have made the region a priority for the United Statesdespite the area's generally poor progress in post-communist reforms."I think in this case this is a national security consideration that'sdriving all of this. The United States has to get that oil from thatregion (Central Asia) and will make a deal with whatevergovernments are there  in place that are willing to work with us (thatis, the US), like the government(s) in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan that are far from ideal with respect to human rights and democratic procedure. And I think that's a reflection of the view that Iwrite about in my book – we (the US) view oil as a securityconsideration and we have to protect it by any means necessary,regardless of other considerations, other values."  I will argue thatthe current US government focus on Afghanistan is part of the oilsecurity consideration.  The following is my attempt to make sense of the Afghan energy connection.

The US government Energy Information fact sheet on Afghanistandated December 2000 says that. "Afghanistan's significance from anenergy standpoint stems from its geographic position as a potentialtransit route for oil and natural gas exports from Central Asia tothe Arabian Sea. This potential includes proposed multi-billiondollar oil and gas export pipelines through Afghanistan,   althoughthese plans have now been thrown into serious question..."

  These pipelines would begin in the former Soviet Republic of Turkemenistan, which may have one of the largest gas deposits in theworld. (...)

  The [Washington] Post  [in a 1998 article] goes on to say that"Turkmenistan's potential was enormous. Just inland from the Caspianshore were some of the world's oldest oil fields, and Soviet-era

 

7update 7

geological surveys indicated that the prospect for offshore finds wasgood. In the trackless Garagum Desert, away from a thin line of irrigated valleys, geologists had discovered one gas field after another  beginning in the 1960s. By 1990, Dauletabad and the adjoiningSovietabad field were producing 1.6 trillion cubic feet a year, rivalingthe gigantic gas fields of Siberia.

Almost all of this gas was pumped north across Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan into a Russian pipeline and on to markets in Europe and the former Soviet republics.

 Niyazov [Saparmurad Niyazov, the President of Turkmenistan – Update]  said he "smelled old Soviet ambitions" in Russia's use of its pipeline monopoly to keep Turkmenistan's gas from competing withRussian gas in European markets." [In August 1997, Niyazov halted gas deliveries to the Russian-controlled pipeline system– Update]

Advising Niayzov during the early nineties? None other than formerNATO commander and US Secretary of State Alexander Haig.   In1993 Haig actually formed a consortium to build a pipeline fromTurkmenistan through Iran. Haig's project did not involve U.S.companies; Haig's pipeline enterprise was registered in the BritishVirgin Islands. The idea foundered on the opposition of the Clintonadministration. But the idea of new routes for the Turkemenistan oiland gas did not end with the Haig plan. In an article dated 11/25/97,Voice of America  [VOA] reporter Joan Beecher  writes that topgovernment officials and oil company executives from the United States, Turkey, Great Britain, Russia, Azerbaijan, and Central Asia metto discuss an issue of great mutual concern: Pipeline routes for Caspian oil and gas.

The Washington Post in 1998  reported that "The initial enthusiastfor the Afghan route was not an American, however, but CarlosBulgheroni, the short, workaholic chairman of the Bridas Group, anArgentine company. In 1993, a Bridas joint venture with Turkmenistanhad begun laying more than 2,000 miles of seismic lines to map thegeology of a potential gas field in eastern Turkmenistan. Two test wellsconfirmed a huge gas deposit 150 miles from the Afghan border.

In the spring of 1995, Turkmenistan and Pakistan commissioned Bulgheroni's company to study the Afghan route. But that summer, arival entered the game. John Imle, president of California-basedUnocal Corp., wooed Niyazov and Benazir Bhutto, then primeminister of Pakistan, throughout July with a vision of a Unocal pipeline following roughly the same route as the one proposed byBridas." By early 1998 a Unocal led consortium had made a dealwith the Taliban to construct an Afghanistan pipeline fromTurkmenistan to Pakistan.

On the question of the Afghanistan route VOA's Beecher says that..."the most obvious drawback of a proposed pipeline   from

 

update 78

Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan, to Pakistan and down to theArabian Sea is that there is still a civil war going on inAfghanistan.

 Nevertheless, all factions in the civil war have signed agreementssupporting the proposed pipeline,  according to Bob Todor, executivevice president of Unocal,  the company that is leading an internationalconsortium to construct the central Asian pipeline through Afghanistan.Speaking to the international conference, Mr. Todor argued that the basic problem with the existing and proposed western routes, acrossnorthern Russia, or to ports on the Black Sea, or under the Caspianand down to Turkey, is that they all lead to European markets:

"Western Europe is a tough market. It is characterized by high prices for oil products, an aging population, and increasing competitionfrom natural gas. Furthermore, the region is fiercely competitive. It isnow being serviced by fields of course in the Middle East, the NorthSea, Scandinavia, and Russia... Although there is room for CentralAsia's oil, on the whole, it (western Europe) is not a very attractivemarket, because substantial infrastructure will have to be developed to bring that oil from the Caspian to the Western European market, and that market is very competitive."

Much the same is true of Eastern Europe and the countries of theformer Soviet Union, according to Mr. Todor. But Asia is a completelydifferent story. Many speakers, not just Mr. Todor, argued that Asiawill be the fastest growing market for Caspian oil,   even if theregion's present financial crisis should lead to a prolonged economicslowdown. Three routes to Asian markets have been proposed:Through China, through Iran, and through Afghanistan to Pakistan.In Mr. Todor's view, the proposed China route is too long, and will probably prove to be prohibitively expensive. The major argumentagainst the Iran route is, quite simply, that the US government opposesit. Among the many advantages of the Afghanistan route,   accordingto Mr. Todor, is that it would terminate in the Arabian Sea, which ismuch closer than the Persian Gulf or northern China to key Asianmarkets:

"There is tremendous international and regional political willbehind the pipeline.  The pipeline is beneficial to Central Asiancountries because it would allow them to sell their oil in expandingand highly prospective Asian markets. The pipeline is beneficial toAfghanistan, which would receive revenues from transport tariffs ...On a regional level, the pipeline will promote stability and encouragetrade and economic development between South Asia and Central Asia.Finally, because of the combination of short pipeline distance and therelatively low cost of tankerage, this southern route will result in themost competitive export route to the Asia/Pacific market. Yetconstruction of this promising route can only begin if and when an

 

9update 7

internationally recognized government is formed in Afghanistan..."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 theHouse Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, February 12, 1998. [seelater the Testimony of the UNOCAL  – Update]

Maresca concluded his Congressional testimony with this peroration."Developing cost-effective, profitable and efficient export routes for Central Asia resources is a formidable, but not impossible, task. It has been accomplished before. A commercial corridor, a "new" SilkRoad, can link the Central Asia supply   with the demand-once againmaking Central Asia the crossroads between Europe and Asia."

The Unocal led Centgas consortium  consisted of the followingcompanies: Unocal Corporation (US), 46.5 percent; Delta Oil CompanyLimited (Saudi Arabia), 15 percent; The Government of Turkmenistan,  7 percent; Indonesia Petroleum, LTD. (INPEX)(Japan),  6.5 percent; ITOCHU Oil Exploration Co., Ltd. (CIECO)(Japan),  6.5 percent; Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co., Ltd.(Korea),  5 percent; The Crescent Group (Pakistan), 3.5 percent.

The 48-inch diameter pipeline  was to extend 790 miles (1,271kilometers) from the Afghanistan-Turkmenistan border, generally followthe Herat-to-Kandahar Road through Afghanistan, cross the Pakistan border in the vicinity of Quetta, and terminate in Multan, Pakistan,where it would tie into an existing pipeline system. Turkmenistan wasto construct a pipeline that will link with the CentGas line at the border and stretch approximately 105 miles (169 kilometers) to theDauletabad Field. A potential 400-mile (644-kilometer) extension fromMultan to New Delhi also was under consideration.

The Unocal-led initiative foundered in 1998, after the US cruisemissile retaliation against Bin Laden's Afghan camps for the bombingsof its African embassies. Brown University's William O. Beeman wrotein 1998 that... "From the US standpoint,  the only way to deny Iraneverything is for the anti-Iranian Taliban to win in Afghanistan andto agree to the pipeline through their territory.   The Pakistanis, whowould also benefit from this arrangement, are willing to defy theIranians for a share of the pot."

Beeman continues, "Enter Osama bin Laden, a sworn enemy of theUnited States living in Afghanistan. His forces could see that theTaliban would eventually end up in the American camp if things proceeded as they had been. His (Bin Laden) bombing of US embassiesin East Africa (since there were none in Afghanistan) wasaccompanied by a message for Americans to get out of "Islamiccountries." By this, he meant specifically Afghanistan. The Americanresponse was to bomb bin Laden's outposts while carefully noting thathis forces were "not supported by any state." This latter statement was

 

update 710

an attempt to rescue the Taliban relationship, while at the same timegiving the Taliban leaders the message that they must ditch bin Laden.For good measure, American missiles also took out a factory in Sudan– a smokescreen for the real target of their action..." (William O.Beeman  is a Brown University anthropologist specializing in theMiddle East. The piece first ran in The Providence Journal and wasdistributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services. Aug 1998.)

At the same time Unocal came under fire from internationalwomen's organizations for its courting of the Taliban, despite their notorious repression of women's rights. The women's rights issue, morethan the embassy bombings, were used as an excuse to end the Unocalled consortium's deal with the Taliban. UNOCAL had entered a onemillion dollar contract with the University of Nebraska to train workersin Afghanistan specifically for pipeline construction. Women'sorganizations focused on this arrangement for protests.

Unocal's defection did not end pipeline plans. According to theVOA's Sarah Horner "But the pipeline dreams have surfaced again. InMay 2000 there were reports of discussions of the issue involvingAfghanistan, India, Pakistan, Iran and Turkmenistan. And theTaliban newspaper, the Kabul Times, recently reported that the mineand industries minister, Mullah Mohammed Isa Akhond, metrepresentatives of the Central Asia-based US company, Central AsiaOil and Gas Industry. The newspaper quoted company representative,Rafiq Yadgar as saying: "Central Asia Oil and Gas Industry is readyto 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 hiscompany.

But any plans still ran afoul of the civil war in Afghanistan.According to Horner, "Should any pipeline actually get off the ground it will be a prime target for sabotage the United Front whose leader,Ahmad Shah Massoud, excels at guerrilla tactics." A few days beforethe WTC attack, Massoud was killed by suicide bombers posing as journalists.

So as matters stood before the "election" of George W. Bush, plansfor Afghanistan's role in world energy production were at an impasse.As most of us know, the Bush-Cheney team  that took control of theUS Government in January, 2001, was heavily influenced by the oilindustry.  Bush himself is a veteran of a number of mostly failed oilenterprises. Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton, a major player inthe downstream oil industry.

Cheney described Halliburton's role in a 1998 speech at the aptlynamed "Collateral Damage Conference" of the Cato Institute, aconservative Washington think tank. According to Cato "This all-dayconference explored the current and potential conflicts between US

 

11update 7

foreign policy and the liberty and well-being of American citizens. Theconference focused on the ways that US foreign policy infringes onthe freedom of Americans to trade, invest and communicate withthe rest of the world." [In fact, Chenny lobbied for lifting of severalsanctions and prohibition on Iran, Libya, Iraq etc.– Update]

Cheney said in his speech that "Halliburton (...) [will] be the largest private employer in Texas and operate in over 130 countries all over the globe. About 70 to 75 percent of our business is energy related,serving customers like Unocal, Exxon, Shell, Chevron, and many other major oil companies around the world. As a result, we oftentimes find ourselves operating in some very difficult places.  The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democraticallyelected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have tooperate in places where, all things considered, one would not normallychoose to go. But, we go where the business is."   (...)

The current hot spot for "where the business is" happens to be theCaspian. In a column dated Thursday, August 10, 2000 in the ChicagoTribune, Marjorie Cohn,  a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego writes... "Because of the instability in the PersianGulf,  Cheney and his fellow oilmen have zeroed in on the world'sother major source of oil – the Caspian Sea. Its rich oil and gasresources are estimated at $4 trillion by US News and World Report.The Washington-based American Petroleum Institute, voice of themajor US oil companies, called the Caspian region, "the area of greatest resource potential outside of the Middle East." Cheney told agaggle of oil industry executives in 1998, "I can't think of a time whenwe've had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategicallysignificant as the Caspian." Halliburton's Caspian investments includeTurkmenistan. (...)

On October 27, 1997, the same time period in which the Unocal pipeline plan was in the works, a Halliburton press release announced that "Halliburton has received a Letter of Intent from Petronas Carigali(Turkmenistan) SDN BHD to provide integrated drilling services for an exploration and appraisal program in the Caspian Sea beginning inlate 1997. Halliburton, in conjunction with alliance partners, Dresser Industries and Western Atlas, will provide a combination of 10services. Halliburton will be the lead contractor and project manager inaddition to providing technical services. The value of the award isestimated to be U.S. $30 million for the total project. "This major newaward will expand and solidify the HES presence in the EasternCaspian and position the company well for both upstream and downstream projects which are rapidly developing in this emergingmarket," said Zeke Zeringue, president, Halliburton Energy Services.Halliburton Energy Services has been providing a variety of services inTurkmenistan for the past five years."

 

update 712

P.V. Vivekanand, chief editor of The Gulf Today  in the United Arab Emirates sums up the pipeline picture in the Caspian/CentralAsia 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 theright political conditions to move in.  (...)"

So where are we in the post WTC disaster period? The Bush-Cheney administration has taken full advantage of the shock and horror aroused in the US populace by this disastrous attack. On everyfront they are moving to implement a draconian conservative agenda.Whether passing anti-democratic domestic laws in the name of fightingterrorism, or to mobilizing the military to fight "terrorism" abroad,they move full speed ahead with their political program. (...)

But Bin Laden and the Taliban get the scapegoat's tail. Is this based on a real case, with hard evidence? Or is it simply because Bin Ladenet al open the way for the full military might of the US armedforces to be committed to make the Caspian and Central Asianregion safe for the US led oil and gas pipelines?

I think the evidence is overwhelming. The Bush administration plans to use the WTC attack as an opportunity to use the US militaryas pipeline police, with the current goal of splitting the government of Pakistan and the Taliban from the Islamic militants led by Bin Laden.If they can accomplish this, the way might be cleared for theAfghanistan pipeline project, and the basis for further penetration intothe oil rich former Soviet republics established. [Source: By Jon Flanders, 6.10.01, marxismlist: http://marxmail.org] 

[The above excerpt summarises the motive behind the 'Afghan War'.In fact, It was in 1998, the US oil co. UNOCAL suspended theconstruction of pipeline project from Turkmenistan to Pakistan (anextension of which to India was also under consideration). Above excerpt

 points out two major obstacles to the pipeline project: i) Taliban gaveshelter to Osama Bin Laden (OSB) who is 'accused' by the US Govt. tohave hands in terrorist attacks on the US embassies; ii) and the ongoingcivil war in Afghanistan which was not favourable to massive investmentin building pipeline project. Hence, the UNOCAL (and all the 'partners'& 'friends' of it) "wait(s) for the right political conditions to movein."  Thus the invasion of Afghanisthan to install a 'pro-West' ('pro-UNOCAL') Govt. in Afghanistan was a (hidden) agenda of the US Govt.since 1998. Now follow the excerpt written by a US geologist. – Update ]

"In this new kind [of] war...there are no neutral states or geographicalconfines. Us or them. You are either with us or against us."

[R.W. Apple, Jr. in the 'Washington Post' (14/9/2001)]

 

13update 7

   M  a  p   1  :   E  u  r  a  s   i  a

 

What the US knew before September 11

(...) To understand the oil business you must understand that oilcompanies plan on a 50-year horizon. The oil you use today wasdiscovered by my dad and his friends in the 30's.

The US oil industry is very interested in the oil of Central Asia.This is no secret. Russia is opposed to our being involved – again nosecret. This week Condoleesa Rice [US national security adviser – Update]  gave a speech in Russia assuring them that our goal inAfghanistan is not related to our oil interests. I have met Condoleesa – I believe in her honesty. No doubt she believes what she said.However in my opinion she is naïve. Sooner or later the US will moveon that oil – perhaps years after she has left Washington. If forced to,the US may split the bounty with Russia.

The Congress of the US has discussed the desirability of getting thisoil out of the control of the Russians. It has been stated as the policyof the US. Here I quote from "U.S. Interests In The Central AsianRepublics/Hearing Before The Subcommittee On Asia And The Pacific/Of The Ccommittee On International Relations/House Of Representatives/One Hundred Fifth Congress, Second Session, February12, 1998"

"Stated U.S. policy goals regarding energy resources in this regioninclude fostering the independence of the States and their ties to theWest; breaking Russia's monopoly over oil and gas transport routes; promoting Western energy security through diversified suppliers;encouraging the construction of east-west pipelines that do not transitIran; and denying Iran dangerous leverage over the Central Asianeconomies." [Text of the testimony follows this excerpt –   Update]

While at the moment we are awash in oil, industry analysts predictthat the fields of Central Asia probably will be the world's majorsource of oil in 2050.

The only pipelines that come out of this area go through Russiancontrolled territory. The better routes are through Iran to the PersianGulf or through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea. Iranwill not give permission for US companies to build a pipeline there – although I believe a French company is doing so. The other route outis through China – long distance through difficult terrain.

The route through Afghanistan/Pakistan is short. It goes through thewestern part of Pakistan, which is pretty well controlled by theGeneral/Dictator in Pakistan. It is the preferred economic option. The problem is Afghanistan. Unocal has a plan to build that pipeline –but says they have to wait until there is a government inAfghanistan that is stable and friendly to US business interests. TheMuslim hardliners in Afghanistan have to go before that pipelinecan be built.  (...)

13

 

15update 7

I am personally convinced to the point of total certainty that theplan to attack Afghanistan was set in motion one or two years ago.

Understand that the serious policy planning of the US governmentdoes not come and go with individual presidents and is not a responseto chance events.

I've seen the following quote attributed to George Kennan  – mastermind of the US Cold War strategy "...we have about 50% of theworld's wealth, but only 6.3% of its population ...Our real task in thecoming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which willpermit us to maintain this position of disparity... To do so, we willhave to dispense with sentimentality... We should cease to talkabout vague and unreal objectives such as human rights, the risingof living standards, and democratization".

Somebody make me feel better–tell me he didn't say this. (...)What preparations did we make? Over the past 2 years we built a

military circle around Afghanistan   and positioned troops in the major areas that would be destabilized when we went in. We got Uzbekistanto allow our military there. We have a large military presence in SaudiArabia – one of bin Ladens major gripes. We have major NATOoperations going on in Egypt (78,000 troops) and Turkey.Coincidentally we had extra aircraft carriers close to the Persian Gulf.

Is all this bad? It sure is bad for the civilians who live inAfghanistan. I also believe it is bad for the common folk of the USsince in the modern interdependent world you can't afford to be amonster without paying the price. It also is difficult if you areinterested in morality rather than realpolitik.

It is not clear to me whether bin Laden ordered this deed – but it isclear that he is a danger not only to the power structure of the US butalso to the people of the US. His grievances are just but no matter what, I don't condone killing innocents. Not here – not there.

I personally believe we should stop this military action and start amassive ground food delivery to Afghanistan. At the same time acceptthe offer of the Taliban to put bin Laden on trial in a neutral country.

I personally believe we should phase our military out of Arabia,giving the royal family time to take their money and run, and givingthe people of Arabia the option to decide for themselves what kind of government they want. Some might think that the option of having aking who chops off heads is an anachronism. Contrary to popular  propaganda we would not be hurt by this. The house of Saud would behurt and Aramco (Chevron/Texaco) would be hurt. The interests of theUS man on the street would not be hurt. As someone pointed out, theworld is awash in oil. The Saudis do not set the price.

I also believe that we should support Israel in some very differentway, a way that provides equal support for the Palestinians. (...) [Source: Richard Knox; Courtsy to Rainbow Publishers, New Delhi] 

 

update 716

[Thus, a US geologist thinks quite differently to the USA Govt. (or theruling classes) and mainstream media. This sort of different thinking isobserved in the several 'anti-war' protests/demonstrations launched indifferent parts of the USA which will be dealt later. Now, we go throughthe slightly abridged version of the (in)famous "Testimony of the Vice

 President of UNOCAL before the US Congress"  which outlines thedesign and motive behind the present Afghanistan-aggression. See also the

 Map 2 & 3. – Update ]

Unocal pleads before the US Congress.....

Testimony By John J. Maresca, Vice President, International 

 Relations, UNOCAL CORPORATION To House Committee On

 International Relations Subcommittee On Asia And The Pacific,

 February 12, 1998, Washington D.C.

Mr. Chairman, I am John Maresca, Vice President, InternationalRelations, of Unocal Corporation. Unocal is one of the world's leadingenergy resource and project development companies. Our activities arefocused on three major regions – Asia, Latin America and the U.S.Gulf of Mexico. In Asia and the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, we are a major oil and gas producer. I appreciate your invitation to speak here today. I believe these hearings are important and timely, and I congratulate youfor focusing on Central Asia oil and gas reserves and the role they play in shaping U.S. policy.

Today we would like to focus on three issues concerning this region,its resources and U.S. policy: The need for multiple pipeline routes  for Central Asian oil and 

gas. The need for U.S. support for international and regional efforts to

achieve balanced and lasting political settlements within Russia,other newly independent states and in Afghanistan.

The need for structured assistance to encourage economic reformsand the development of appropriate investment climates in theregion. In this regard, we specifically support repeal or removal of Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act.For more than 2,000 years, Central Asia has been a meeting ground 

 between Europe and Asia, the site of ancient east-west trade routescollectively called the Silk Road and, at various points in history, acradle of scholarship, culture and power. It is also a region of trulyenormous natural resources, which are revitalizing cross-border trade,creating positive political interaction and stimulating regionalcooperation. These resources have the potential to recharge theeconomies of neighboring countries and put entire regions on the road to prosperity.

About 100 years ago, the international oil industry was born in the

 

17update 7

Caspian/Central Asian region with the discovery of oil. In theintervening years, under Soviet rule, the existence of the region's oiland gas resources was generally known, but only partially or poorlydeveloped. As we near the end of the 20th century, history brings usfull circle. With political barriers falling, Central Asia and the Caspianare once again attracting people from around the globe who areseeking ways to develop and deliver its bountiful energy resources tothe markets of the world.

The Caspian region contains tremendous untapped hydrocarbon

Map 2: Pipeline/Caspian

 

update 718

reserves, much of them located in the Caspian Sea basin itself. Provennatural gas reserves  within Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan equal more than 236 trillion cubic feet. The region's totaloil reserves  may reach more than 60 billion barrels of oil – enoughto service Europe's oil needs for 11 years . Some estimates are ashigh as 200 billion barrels. In 1995, the region was producing only870,000 barrels per day (44 million tons per year [Mt/y]).

By 2010, Western companies could increase production to about 4.5million barrels a day (Mb/d) – an increase of more than 500 percentin only 15 years. If this occurs, the region would represent about fivepercent of the world's total oil production, and almost 20 percentof oil produced among non-OPEC countries.

One major problem has yet to be resolved: how to get the region'svast energy resources to the markets where they are needed. There arefew, if any, other areas of the world where there can be such adramatic increase in the supply of oil and gas to the world market.The solution seems simple: build a "new" Silk Road. Implementingthis solution, however, is far from simple. The risks are high, but soare the rewards.

Finding and Building Routes to World MarketsOne of the main problems is that Central Asia is isolated. The

region is bounded on the north by the Arctic Circle, on the east and west by vast land distances, and on the south by a series of naturalobstacles – mountains and seas – as well as political obstacles, such asconflict zones or sanctioned countries.

This means that the area's natural resources are landlocked, bothgeographically and politically. Each of the countries in the Caucasusand Central Asia faces difficult political challenges. Some haveunsettled wars or latent conflicts. Others have evolving systems wherethe laws – and even the courts – are dynamic and changing. Businesscommitments can be rescinded without warning, or they can bedisplaced by new geopolitical realities.

In addition, a chief technical obstacle we face in transporting oil isthe region's existing pipeline infrastructure. Because the region'spipelines  were constructed during the Moscow-centered Soviet period,they tend to head north and west toward Russia. There are noconnections to the south and east .

Depending wholly on this infrastructure to export Central Asia oilis not practical. Russia currently is unlikely to absorb large newquantities of "foreign" oil, is unlikely to be a significant market for energy in the next decade, and lacks the capacity to deliver it to other markets. Certainly there is no easy way out of Central Asia. If thereare to be other routes, in other directions, they must be built.

Two major energy infrastructure projects are seeking to meet thischallenge. One, under the aegis of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium,

 

19update 7

or CPC, plans to build a pipeline west from the Northern Caspian tothe Russian Black Sea port of Novorossisk . From Novorossisk, oilfrom this line would be transported by tanker through the Bosphorusto the Mediterranean and world markets.

The other project is sponsored by the Azerbaijan InternationalOperating Company (AIOC), a consortium of 11 foreign oilcompanies  including four American companies – Unocal, Amoco,Exxon and Pennzoil. It will follow one or both of two routes westfrom Baku. One line will angle north and cross the North Caucasusto Novorossisk.  The other route  would cross Georgia  and extend toa shipping terminal on the Black Sea port of Supsa. This second route may be extended west and south across Turkey to theMediterranean port of Ceyhan. [Building of this pipeline is now in progress– Update]

But even if both pipelines were built, they would not have enoughtotal capacity to transport all the oil expected to flow from the regionin the future; nor would they have the capability to move it to theright markets. Other export pipelines must be built.

Unocal believes that the central factor in planning these pipelinesshould be the location of the future energy markets that are most likelyto need these new supplies. Just as Central Asia was the meetingground between Europe and Asia in centuries past, it is again in aunique position to potentially service markets in both of these regions – if export routes to these markets can be built. Let's take a look atsome of the potential markets.

Map 3: Pipeline/Central Asia

 

update 720

Western EuropeWestern Europe is a tough market. It is characterized by high prices

for oil products, an aging population, and increasing competition fromnatural gas. Between 1995 and 2010, we estimate that demand for oilwill increase (...) [by] an average growth rate of only 0.5 percentannually. (...) [T]he Western European market is unlikely to be able toabsorb all of the production from the Caspian region.

Central and Eastern Europe

Central and Eastern Europe markets do not look any better.Although there is increased demand for oil in the region's transportsector, natural gas is gaining strength as a competitor. (...) LikeWestern Europe, this market is also very competitive. (...)

The Domestic NIS MarketThe growth in demand for oil also will be weak in the Newly

Independent States (NIS). (...)

Asia/PacificIn stark contrast to the other three markets, the Asia/Pacific region

has a rapidly increasing demand for oil and an expected significantincrease in population. Prior to the recent turbulence in the variousAsian/Pacific economies, we anticipated that this region's demand foroil would almost double by 2010 . Although the short-term increase indemand will probably not meet these expectations, Unocal stands behind its long-term estimates.

Energy demand growth will remain strong for one key reason: theregion's population is expected to grow by 700 million people by 2010.

It is in everyone's interests that there be adequate supplies for Asia'sincreasing energy requirements. If Asia's energy needs are not satisfied,they will simply put pressure on all world markets, driving pricesupwards everywhere.

The key question is how the energy resources of Central Asiacan be made available to satisfy the energy needs of nearby Asianmarkets. There are two possible solutions – with several variations.

Export Routes:

East to China: Prohibitively Long?One option is to go east across China. But this would mean

constructing a pipeline of more than 3,000 kilometers to central China – as well as a 2,000-kilometer connection to reach the main populationcenters along the coast. Even with these formidable challenges, China National Petroleum Corporation is considering building a pipeline eastfrom Kazakhstan to Chinese markets.

Unocal had a team in Beijing just last week for consultations withthe Chinese. Given China's long-range outlook and its ability to

 

21update 7

concentrate resources to meet its own needs, China is almost certain to build such a line. The question is what will the costs of transportingoil through this pipeline be and what netback will the producersreceive.

South to the Indian Ocean: A Shorter Distance to GrowingMarkets

A second option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia tothe Indian Ocean.

One obvious potential route south would be across Iran. However,this option is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S.sanctions legislation. The only other possible route option is acrossAfghanistan, which has its own unique challenges.

The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost twodecades. The territory across which the pipeline would extend iscontrolled by the Taliban, an Islamic movement that is notrecognized as a government by most other nations. From the outset,we have made it clear that construction of our proposed pipelinecannot begin until a recognized government is in place that has theconfidence of governments, lenders and our company.

In spite of this, a route through Afghanistan appears to be the bestoption  with the fewest technical obstacles. It is the shortest route tothe sea  and has relatively favorable terrain for a pipeline. The routethrough Afghanistan is the one that would bring Central Asian oil

closest to Asian markets   and thus would be the cheapest in terms of transporting the oil.

Unocal envisions the creation of a Central Asian Oil PipelineConsortium. The pipeline would become an integral part of a regionaloil pipeline system that will utilize and gather oil from existing pipeline infrastructure in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan andRussia.

The 1,040-mile-long oil pipeline would begin near the town of Chardzhou, in northern Turkmenistan, and extend southeasterlythrough Afghanistan  to an export terminal that would be constructed on the Pakistan coast on the Arabian Sea . Only about 440 miles of the pipeline would be in Afghanistan.

This 42-inch-diameter pipeline will have a shipping capacity of one

"The territory across which the pipeline would extend is controlled bythe Taliban, an Islamic movement that is not recognized as a

government by most other nations. From the outset, we have madeit clear that construction of our proposed pipeline cannot begin until

a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders and our company." – Unocal Corporation

 

update 722

million barrels of oil per day. Estimated cost of the project – which issimilar in scope to the Trans Alaska Pipeline–is about US$2.5 billion.

There is considerable international and regional political interestin this pipeline.  Asian crude oil importers, particularly from Japan,are looking to Central Asia and the Caspian as a new strategic sourceof supply to satisfy their desire for resource diversity. The pipelinebenefits Central Asian countries   because it would allow them to selltheir oil in expanding and highly prospective hard currency markets.The pipeline would benefit Afghanistan, which would receive revenuesfrom transport tariffs, and would promote stability and encourage tradeand economic development. Although Unocal has not negotiated withany one group, and does not favor any group, we have had contactswith and briefings for all of them. We know that the different factionsin Afghanistan understand the importance of the pipeline project for their country, and have expressed their support of it. (...)

Natural Gas Export(...) Last October, the Central Asia Pipeline, Ltd. (CentGas)

consortium, in which Unocal holds an interest, was formed to developa gas pipeline that will link Turkmenistan's vast natural gas reservesin the Dauletabad Field with markets in Pakistan and possibly India .An independent evaluation shows that the field's resources are adequatefor the project's needs, assuming production rates rising over time to 2 billion cubic feet of gas per day for 30 years or more.

In production since 1983, the Dauletabad Field's natural gas has been delivered north via Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia to marketsin the Caspian and Black Sea areas. The proposed 790-mile pipelinewill open up new markets for this gas, travelling fromTurkmenistan through Afghanistan to Multan, Pakistan. A proposedextension  would link with the existing Sui pipeline system, movinggas to near New Delhi, where it would connect with the existing HBJ pipeline. By serving these additional volumes, the extension would enhance the economics of the project, leading to overall reductions indelivered natural gas costs for all users and better margins. Ascurrently planned, the CentGas pipeline would cost approximately $2billion. A 400-mile extension into India  could add $600 million  tothe overall project cost.

As with the proposed Central Asia Oil Pipeline, CentGas cannot begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistangovernment is in place. For the project to advance, it must haveinternational financing, government-to-government agreements and government-to-consortium agreements.

ConclusionThe Central Asia and Caspian region is blessed with abundant oil

and gas that can enhance the lives of the region's residents and provide

 

23update 7

energy for growth for Europe and Asia.The impact of these resources on U.S. commercial interests and

U.S. foreign policy is also significant and intertwined . Without peaceful settlement of conflicts within the region, cross-border oil and gas pipelines are not likely to be built. We urge the Administrationand the Congress to give strong support to the United Nations-ledpeace process in Afghanistan.

U.S. assistance in developing these new economies will be crucial to business' success. We encourage strong technical assistance programsthroughout the region. We also urge repeal or removal of Section 907of the Freedom Support Act. This section unfairly restricts U.S.government assistance to the government of Azerbaijan and limits U.S.influence in the region.

Developing cost-effective, profitable and efficient export routes for Central Asia resources is a formidable, but not impossible, task. It has been accomplished before. A commercial corridor, a "new" SilkRoad, can link the Central Asia supply with the demand – once againmaking Central Asia the crossroads between Europe and Asia.

Thank you. [Source: www.house.gov/international_relations/105th/ap/] 

[Thus, the UNOCAL Corporation , a US company chartered the pathof invasion of Afghanistan early in 1998 to install a govt. there, which"has the confidence of.... company". Many writers/analysts now believe (asthe US geologist said earlier) that the terrorist attack on WTC on 11thSeptember has given the US Govt. a splendid excuse to attack Afghanistan.Recent moves by 6+2  countries (six neighbouring countries are:Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kajakstan, China, Iran, Pakistan and the other two are the 'big bosses' US & Russia) and UN to set up a govt. in Kabul(having the 'confidence' of oil companies!) clearly justify that they are inhurry to install a Govt. 'favourable' for their interests. Now we have todeal more excerpts on this subject of 'Great Game' of oil politics behindthe 'Afghan War'. Since the breaking up of Soviet Union, this 'GreatGame' had started. Even India has interests in this 'Game'! Follow thenext excerpt which predicts that the "'Great Game'.... likely to intensify....in coming years". – Update ]

Central Asia's Great Game

(...) It was Rudyard Kipling who first popularised the phrase, 'greatgame' in his famous novel "Kim" to describe the 19th century rivalry between Russia and Britain over the territory lying between India and Russia. But the new 'great game' being played in Central Asia, particularly in the Caspian Sea region, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan is different from the old one in so far as it does not aimat the physical subjugation of this region. Its main objective is to

 

update 724

gain control over the oil and gas reserves   in the Central Asian and Caspian Sea region estimated to be the largest untapped  oil and natural gas deposits in the world.

An important aspect of the new game in that the great powers,USA, and Russia, and the regional players, Turkey, Iran, SaudiArabia, Pakistan and the late starter India , are likely to bring inthe region their respective strategic priorities which may not be of great significance to the Central Asian states. For instance, the Iranian-Turkish rivalry or the Saudi-Iranian rivalry or the Pakistan-Indiarivalry has not been of much concern to the Central Asian states. Butas some recent developments indicate, which ever of these regional powers gains diplomatic upper hand, this is likely to have some impacton the strategic priorities of one or more of the Central Asian states.At present both the big powers the US and Russia – and regional players like Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and even India are promoting their respective agendas relating to the pipelines routes carrying CentralAsian oil and gas for foreign markets.

It may be relevant to quote here a report of Times of India datedMay 31, 1997 about Mr. Kissenger's visit to New Delhi in April1997. According to this report, Mr. Kissenger was very interested inthe formation of an international consortium for the exploitation of Central Asian oil and gas involving  as disparate and large a group of nations as the United States, Japan, China, India, Pakistan and theCentral Asian states.

The Clinton administration's effort to marry its economic and foreign policy interests is perhaps most apparent in its energy policywhich seeks to secure oil and gas reserves, build new securityrelationships and buttress the shaky foundations of the Central Asianstates. As a corollary of this energy policy, the US effort has been tokeep Russia and Iran as far away as possible   from the oil and gasriches of Central Asia and the Caspian region. (...)

Pakistan's geopolitical and geoeconomic interests   received aserious setback about a year and a half ago when the US energy giantUnocal decided to withdraw from a multi-billion dollar gas pipelinefrom Turkmenistan to Pakistan via Afghanistan. The flimsy reasonscited by Unocal for withdrawing from the project were politicaluncertainties in Afghanistan and low prices of oil and gas. The factsare that the Taliban are firmly in control of Afghanistan's 90%percent territory where complete peace prevails  and the oil and gas prices have touched their peak. The real reasons seemed to bePakistan's support for the Taliban government and the straining of relations between the US and the Taliban on the question of expulsionof Usama bin Laden. With the southern routes to the Indian Oceanthrough Iran blocked by American political and strategicconsiderations, a land route for Turkmenistan, oil and gas through

 

25update 7

Afghanistan and Pakistan was an extremely viable proposition. It could have been extended to India  which has already emerged as one of theworld's largest markets for natural gas.

It is significant that shortly after Unocal's withdrawal from the project, Washington did not take long in extending its support for theTrans-Caspian gas pipeline (TCP) which seeks to provide Turkmenistanan-other viable option for carrying its gas to Turkey for onward despatch to Europe. (...)

India also is trying to get a foothold in Central Asia  by exploitingthe  obsessions of Central Asian Presidents   (all ex-communist partyleaders) with the rise of Islamic parties and "terrorist" groups intheir republics. New Delhi is also playing on the American and Russian sensitivities relating to what they say the spread of Islamic"fundamentalism" in the region. India seems to have gained someground in Uzbekistan  whose President Karimov recently paid anofficial visit to New Delhi and expressed solidarity with India infighting "terrorism". India and Uzbekistan are also reportedly tryingto develop some defence collaboration with each other.

It is interesting that in her address at Tashkent's University of World Economy and Diplomacy on April 17, Secretary of State MadelineAlbright said that her trip to Central Asia "is more than a fascinatingcultural experience; it expresses important interests for United Statesforeign policy". Continuing her address, Albright  significantlyremarked: "The Central Asian nations can also have an impact onAfghanistan, and thus on Pakistan and India.... So while you aregeographically distant from the United States, you are very closelyconnected to some of our most vital interests".

The new 'Great Game' in Central Asia is likely to intensify  as theworld-wide demand for oil and gas increases in the coming years.Unlike the 19th century great game of acquiring physical or politicaldomination over the region lying between Russia and India, the newgame revolves round the routes of gas and oil pipelines  which willcarry the 'black gold' from Central Asia and the Caucasus tointernational markets. Besides the Chief rivals, Russia and the USA,the regional players including Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistanand India have their own agendas to promote  in regard to the routesof the proposed oil and gas pipelines. The war in Chechenya, (throughwhich Russia's main oil pipeline passes), the increasing unrest in partsof the region, the sudden spurt in US concern with the rise in theso-called "Islamic extremism and terrorism", instigated by India,are actually offshoots of the new oil and gas pipeline politics . (...) [Source: By Afzaal Mahmood; www.defencejournal.com/globe/2000/] 

[In the 'Afghan War' a peculiar alliance has been formed betweenvaried (and rival) interests such as between the US & Russia or betweenthe US and China. Even the Indian Govt. throws itself into this 'Game'.

 

update 726

Pakistan & Iran also have respective interests in this 'Game'. It is to benoted also that all these countries/powers are interested to fight against'terrorism' (to some countries, 'terrorism' is analogous to 'Islamicextremism' as the Indian Govt. proclaims) in the terrains, hills and war-ravaged Afghanistan overtly and covertly. What makes them 'united'? Thenext excerpt written by a US writer elaborates various interests of big &regional players in this 'Great Game' in details. – Update ]

The Caspian Basin and Asian Energy Markets

IntroductionThe landlocked, energy-rich states east of the Caspian Sea, including

Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, form the territorial boundaries, along with Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, of what has beencommonly referred to as Central Asia. This region constitutes ageographic space in the heart of Eurasia that increasingly findsitself the center of fundamental tensions between commercialinterests  in the future development and prospective transport of oil and natural gas, and security concerns that have often challenged theseoptions. (...)

Oil and gas assets in the Caspian region account for 2 to 3 percentof proven world energy reserves. Turkmenistan   possesses the world'sthird largest gas reserves  after Russia and Iran, located along theCaspian coast and in the northern and eastern parts of the country.Kazakhstan  has huge oil and gas fields in the north and west of thecountry, with the largest quantities existing onshore in westernKazakhstan (the Tengiz and Uzen fields), onshore in the northern partof the country (the Karachaganak gas field), and offshore under theCaspian Sea (the Kashagan oil field). Depending on the volumes of oiland gas actually discovered in the region over the next decade, their contributions to world reserves could make a significant difference inaggregate market supplies and prices. In particular, these reserves could enhance energy security over the next ten to fifteen years as fields inthe North Sea and elsewhere begin to dwindle, and as futureexplorations shed a more definitive light on the actual size of theCaspian reserves.

Since the five Central Asian Republics gained independence adecade ago, numerous proposals have been made to transport oil and gas from Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to developing countries in Asia – particularly China, Pakistan, and India. These nations, east andsoutheast of the Caspian Sea, view Central Asia as a bridgebetween East and West, and have traditionally had significanteconomic and security interests in Central Asia.   Internationalcompanies have also been attracted to the possibilities of these eastward 

 

27update 7

energy markets because of the potential profits that could be reaped byexporting Caspian energy to Asia, where energy demands are projected to outstrip those of Europe as the states continue to develop their economies. Four factors  explain why pipelines to South Asia and China have not yet materialized, despite the historical linkages betweenSouth, East, and Central Asia, and the clear economic interest in pursuing such options.

First, Russia has had a historical monopoly over energy investmentsand routes in Central Asia. Although Russia today is relatively weak compared to its great power status during the Cold War, it is still themost influential nation in Central Asia, primarily due to existing pipeline and security infrastructures-holdovers from the Soviet era.While newly constructed pipelines such as that from Baku (Azerbaijan)to Supsa (Georgia) and oil swap deals including one betweenTurkmenistan and Iran do exist, the vast majority of energy still exitsthe region through Russia for consumption in the West. RussianPresident Vladimir Putin has placed renewed emphasis on Russianrelations with its southern neighbors, particularly regarding economicand security issues. In October 2000, Putin signed a pact withKazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Belarus to create a EurasianEconomic Community, and has created a new government post torepresent Russia's interests in the Caspian. Regarding security issues,Putin stated in his most recent visit to Uzbekistan on May 4, 2001:"Without Russia, it will be impossible to stop the expansion of Islamicextremists on the territory of Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan." (...)

Third, the potential recipients of Caspian oil and gas in developingAsian countries have yet to fully address issues in their own states thatwould allow them to become serious importers – especially of naturalgas – in the near future. As witnessed in the recent debates over theKyoto Protocol, it remains to be determined how best to balance theincreasing energy needs of China, India, and Pakistan, where energydemand is projected to increase faster than in any other region (...).

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, regional security challenges,including the civil war in Afghanistan  and U.S. sanctions policyagainst Iran, have thwarted attempts to carry natural gas and oileast from the Caspian. The Central Asian states are not simply anappendage to Russia or the successor states of the former Soviet Union, but rather form a new geopolitical space in which these countries and the neighboring powers to their south and east – as well as to thenorth and west-struggle to address a set of complex and often inter-related security challenges,  including the spread of terrorism, drugtrafficking, and militant Islamic groups. The evolving dynamic inthe Central Asian region can be defined in terms of the increased  presence of China and Iran in the region, and, more distantly, Pakistanand India, as well as by potentially dangerous spillover effects of theongoing civil wars and mounting humanitarian crises in Afghanistan

 

update 728

and Chechnya. Despite the small steps that have been made ininvestigating the commercial energy options from the Caspian to thedeveloping countries of Asia, geostrategic and security issues havelargely outweighed these efforts .

Energy Markets in India and Pakistan(...) India relies primarily on coal and oil as its main energy

sources: coal accounts for more than half of India's energy demand and oil satisfies about 30 percent of total energy consumption. With a population of over one billion people, and a projected GDP growthrate of 6 percent in the coming years, India faces great challenges in balancing its current and future need for energy with the growingeconomic, environmental, and public health costs of increased dependence on coal. While demand in India for coal and oil hasincreased dramatically, it is India's consumption of natural gas that hasrisen faster than any other fuel in past few years. India's largely self-sufficient supply of coal makes it the third largest coal producer in theworld; however, the country's own production of natural gas meets onlya small fraction of its needs. Given that India's demand for natural gascould quadruple over the next 25 years, with power plants and fertilizer factories driving this increase, India has been devising a long-term strategy to import the requisite amounts of natural gas.

India's most promising option from an economic viewpoint is toimport gas through pipelines from neighboring Bangladesh , which possesses more gas reserves than it consumes. Although this optionremains India's most commercially viable one, it has encountered considerable obstacles from both sides.

For this option to materialize, Bangladesh needs to define therelationship between its domestic reserves and consumption, and Indiamust convince Bangladesh of the mutual economic benefits. (...)

There have also been numerous proposals in India to explore oiland gas pipelines originating in the Caspian region. Two pipelines,one for oil and another for gas, were proposed in 1997 to extendfrom Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and Pakistan to India.Neither has progressed due to low energy prices and the civil warin Afghanistan, and two original consortium members, Unocal  and Gazprom [a Russian oil-giant – Update], have withdrawn. In morerecent projects, India has considered bypassing Afghanistan entirelyby importing energy from Iran's   huge South Pars gas field throughPakistan, with the additional option of extending the pipeline north to bring in gas from Turkmenistan. The premise is that all could gainfrom the transport of natural gas from Iran to India: Iran and Turkmenistan would profit from the opportunity to sell natural gas,Pakistan would receive significant transit fees, and India would acquiremuch-needed gas to supply its agricultural sector. However, while this

 

29update 7

 project could potential ly benefit all parties involved, three primarysecurity obstacles  have prevented this and other related options frommaterializing.

First, great mistrust between the two nuclear powers, India and Pakistan, over the disputed region of Kashmir continues to inhibitregional cooperation even on projects with mutual economic benefit.(...) An alternative Indian proposal for a pipeline that would bypassPakistan and run underwater from Iran to India is viewed as too costlyand too risky  because it also would be susceptible to Pakistani attack.

Second, U.S. sanctions policy against Iran has limited theinvestment and pipeline construction options to this region from theCaspian. Some experts argue that if the current U.S. sanctions againstIran are lifted or partially alleviated, new options for eastern and southern pipeline routes, such as from Kazakhstan and/or Turkmenistanto Iran, could be considered. But as long as U.S. sanctions policylimits capital investment for such projects, it will be difficult to raisethe necessary funding for the construction of pipelines involving Iran.

Third, even if U.S. sanctions against Iran were to be relaxed, (...)[i]t is also unclear whether it is Iran's own policy to serve as a link for transporting Caspian energy to South Asia, or whether Iran, withits own vast oil and gas reserves, would prefer to supply South Asiaitself, independent of Central Asia's Caspian resources.

Despite the U.S. sanctions on Iran, India and Iran haveincreasingly  common strategic interests. India views Iran as a gatewayto Central Asian markets and natural resources, and has shown particular interest in purchasing inexpensive defense products fromIran. Iran and India are also united in their opposition to the  Talibanregime in neighboring Afghanistan, although Iran has managed toforge relations with Afghanistan based on mutual trade interests,among others. A recent visit by Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee to Iranin April 2001 solidified the commonalities between the two countrieson a diplomatic level.

Given the regional difficulties in moving forward with Caspian pipeline proposals, India is continuing to develop its LNGinfrastructure, with moderate success. In fact, about a dozen LNGterminals have been approved on India's east and west coasts toaccommodate supply deliveries by ship. By diversifying the location of the ports, both Middle Eastern suppliers, including Qatar, Iran, AbuDhabi, Yemen and Oman, as well as Southeast Asian countries, namelyIndonesia, Malaysia and Australia, could be possible suppliers of LNGto India. (...)

Energy Markets in ChinaChina's forays into Central Asia have been driven by security

concerns as well as the need to satisfy its growing energy needs .Perhaps the most significant change in China's energy policy occurred 

 

update 730

in 1993, when China became a net importer of oil. As the world'smost populous country (over 1.2 billion people), China currentlyimports over one-quarter of the oil it consumes, largely from theMiddle East and Southeast Asia, and this amount is expected toincrease dramatically over the next 20 years. China has recognized thatits dependence on coal (as the world's largest producer and consumer of this fossil fuel) has contributed to an environmental and publichealth crisis, in which lung disease, primarily caused by air pollutionand smoking, is the leading cause of death in China. To help addressthis problem, China has decided to maximize its use of natural gas, adecision that runs parallel to the expected decrease in coal usage and the increase of natural gas consumption as a percentage of total energyuse. The recent decision by the Chinese government to develop its ownnatural gas infrastructure and import greater volumes of natural gas as part of a 5-year infrastructure construction program (2001-2005) should also be analyzed in the context of the country's own domestic agenda.

For decades, China has been concerned about the security of itswestern Xinjiang province, which borders seven countries (Russia,Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, andIndia), and is inhabited largely by Muslim Uighurs.   China sees the potential expansion of an anti-Chinese pan-Turkic movement  and increased unrest on its western border as one of its main securitythreats. A Central Committee Document (No. 7), issued in 1996 and still followed by the Party and the government today, explicitly defines potential destabilization in Xinjiang as an issue that could affect theentire country. To address this threat, China has executed Uighur nationalists and actively encouraged the migration of Han Chinese intosparsely-populated Xinjiang. Since the late 1980s, China has promoted increased trade and potential energy routes through Xinjiang, while atthe same time, it has attempted to prevent the spread of ideas and movements that oppose the Chinese government.

In February 1998, Beijing changed its strategy toward natural gas,which was previously used in limited fertilizer production, and decided to invest billions of dollars to promote the fossil fuel for domesticheating, vehicle consumption, and energy production. In a major shiftof policy, which was aimed at incorporating China's own gas reservesin the west into the country's developing natural gas infrastructure, anoriginally-planned gas pipeline from the East China Sea to Shanghaiwas halted in favor of an alternative, more costly pipeline originatingin west China. This project to transport natural gas from Xinjiangto Shanghai in east China, termed the East-West Gas TransmissionProject, has attracted a level of investment second only to the ThreeGorges Dam Project on the Yangtze River. The pipeline, which will beover 2,600 miles long with a multi-billion dollar price-tag, is intended to ease the shortage of clean energy in the east and increase the gasconsumption in China over the next several decades. (...)

 

31update 7

China and Central AsiaSince energy-rich Central Asia borders China and serves as a

growing trade route and market for Chinese goods, China has actively pursued production-sharing agreements and pipeline options in CentralAsia. Since 1997, the Chinese National Pipeline Corporation (CNPC)has held a 60 percent stake in a Kazakh oil company,Aktobemunaigaz, to develop the Zhanazhol and Kenkiyak onshore oildeposits in the Aktyubinsk region in western Kazakhstan. China hasalso considered the possibility of constructing an oil pipeline fromthis region in Kazakhstan to Xinjiang. (...) Finally, a preliminaryfeasibility study in 1998, submitted by ExxonMobil, Mitsubishi, andCNPC for the construction of a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan toXinjiang that could eventually be extended to Japan, determinedthat such a pipeline would be too costly .

In adhering to a diversified import plan, China, like India, has beendeveloping its LNG market. A port terminal in the Guangdong province on its southeastern seaboard is being built to receive LNG byship, with imports likely to begin by 2005. (...)

In light of the obstacles already discussed, energy pipeline optionsfrom the Caspian region both to South Asia and to China must beviewed as long-term, future options, rather than current or near-term prospects. Because India, Pakistan, and China recognize that these pipelines would traverse large, potentially unstable territories, and thatthey must address a range of domestic obstacles, it appears that thesegovernments are keeping options open now for the future.

Spotlight on Central AsiaThe tensions within South Asia, primarily between India and 

Pakistan, as well as those in the Xinjiang Province of China, have been highlighted as examples of overarching security concerns thathave driven domestic policies in the region. There are also other fundamental tensions between economic and security concerns in thehistorical geographic space of Central Asia. For example, significantdiscord exists between the economic promise of the energy-richcountries in the region and the economic insecurity of the other non-energy-rich states. The most economically fragile countries of theregion aside from Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, have littleforeign direct investment, unlike Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Incomparison with the projection that Kazakhstan will attract $65-70 billion to its oil and gas sector over the next decade, the prospects for foreign investment in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan are increasingly dim.(...) Finally, ongoing border disputes between Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan have contributed to mounting tensions between the twocountries.

The most troubling and potentially destabilizing threat   for the

 

update 732

entire region is the ongoing civil war in Afghanistan. The January2001 Strategic Assessment of Central Eurasia published by the AtlanticCouncil and the Central Asia – Caucasus Institute (SAIS) argues thatthe first priority for the region should be an earnest and higher-level attempt to solve the civil war in Afghanistan, as many of theproblems that the region confronts – terrorism, militant Islam, anddrug trafficking-all have their roots in this conflict and theinstability it has created . If this conflict is not addressed relativelysoon, the problems in Afghanistan may fester and spread to the weak and vulnerable Central Asian states to the north. (...)

Recent U.S. policy towards the region has included support for theimplementation of sanctions against the Taliban by the United Nationsin December 2000, focusing on Osama bin Laden, and the labeling of organizations such as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) asterrorist organizations that pose a threat to international security. Itremains to be seen how the Bush administration will define thiscomplex geographic space and U.S. interests in the region.   However,the role of Asian energy markets as potential recipients of oil and natural gas supplies from Central Asian states adds a layer of complexity in the emerging Central Asian region that must beexamined in the context of regional and surrounding security concerns. [Source: By Regine A. Spector, The Brookings Institution, 24.5.01;www.brook.edu/views/articles/] 

[The above excerpt narrates the oil-interests of different powers on andaround Afghanistan/Central Asia. We have now enough evidences toconclude what lies behind the US attack (and overwhelming supports to it

 from different states) on Afghanistan. Also the interests of India (in Afghanistan under the veil of 'fight against terrorism') are in certainextent clarified to us. In the next excerpts we have to go through theinterests of other big powers–Russia and China more elaborately. –Update ]

Russia and Central Asia: Problems and Prospects

The new Central Asian republics are of considerable significance toMoscow and the Russian policy assigns paramount importance to thisregion. Instability in Central Asia is rife and can easily conflagrate onthe Russian border. In addition, Russia is also concerned about thenegative ramifications of developments in Afghanistan and importanceTaliban's assistance to the Chechen rebels. For Russia the economicimportance of this region emanates from its rich natural resources and trade relations with this region. (...) Given the historical legacy of Russia's control over the region, its overwhelming superiority inmilitary strength and geographical proximity, together, create anenduring condition where the Russian role in Central Asia cannot be

 

33update 7

undermined for years to come.(...) There is no doubt that the developments (positive or negative)

in Central Asia will be greatly conditioned by: (1) events within theRussian Federation and the political choices of its new leaders; (2) thestrategic doctrine and consequent political and military decisions of thenew Bush Administration in the US; (3) the role of China, Iran,Turkey, Pakistan and India; (4) developments in Afghanistan; (5) the policies of the European countries in Central Asia; (6) and the role of countries like Japan and Korea which will have a significant impacton the developments in Central Asia. The geo-strategic location andpresence of rich natural resources are attracting countries likeIran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, Japan, Korea andothers to this region. The West, the US in particular, hassubstantially increased its influence over these states.   This clearlyendangers Russia's position in this strategically important region. Giventhe geographical proximity, historical links and presence of a multi-million Russian diaspora in this region, Russia considers Central Asiavital to its interests. (...)

Russia's Role in Central Asia(...) Keeping in view the Russian role in the CARs [Central Asian

 Republics], its long-term interests in the region can be defined as:First,  maintaining political and economic stability in the region. It

would be in Russia's interest to prevent escalation of inter-state and internal conflicts.

Second,  safeguarding Russia's economic interests  in the region. (...)From the economic and political points of view, Kazakhstan is perhapsthe single most important Central Asian state for Russia, mainly because it was the second largest republic of the former Soviet Union.It is the only Central Asian state bordering Russia, and its Russian population is reported to be in excess of six million. It is the home of significant ex-Soviet defence industrial facilities, including the spacelaunch complex and nuclear weapons testing facilities. (...) It has also been termed as the "second Kuwait"  on the basis of its petrolreserves. In the CIS, Kazakhstan is the second largest petroleum producer after Russia. If we take Uzbekistan, there are large enterprisesin the Russian Federation that depend upon cotton imports fromUzbekistan, even ten years after the Soviet disintegration. Looking atthe sheer statistics, one might come to the conclusion that theeconomic relations between Russians and these countries are close tozero, but that is not exactly the whole picutre. (...)

Fifth,  the prevention of the spread of Islamic extremism. The warin Afganistan, marked in the last two years by the increasingdominance of the Pakistan-supported Taliban movement  over most parts of the country, has become a major source of concern to Russiaas well as number of regional actors, specially India, China, Iran,

 

update 734

Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan . On January 16, 2001, Kabulrecognised  the government of the breakaway Republic of Chechnyaand allowed the Chechens to open an embassy in Kabul. During thenext few weeks, there were reports that 200 Taliban cadres had left tofight in Chechnya, while Chechen refugees, particularly young boysand the families of leading Chechen commanders, began to arrive inKabul and Kandahar. A joint training camp has been set up in Mazar-i-Sharif to train Islamic dissidents from all over Central Asia. Theseevents clearly endanger the Russian security. Moscow's Ambassador toDushanbe, Maxim Peshkov, told reporters in the Tajik capital that "thesituation in Afganistan  is the number one problem  for Central Asiaand Russia." (...)

Seventh, the prevention of disruption of communication linescrossing Russia, and access to new transport arteries and to oil andgas pipelines  oriented to the "far abroad". Russia is interested inhaving access to transport routes through Central Asia to the worldmarket.  It wants to retain control over the supply of metals, and strategic and raw materials from the region. Russia has a vital interestin the oil and gas complex   of Central Asia, which is important for Russia for several reasons. First, this complex is developing vigorously,compared to the other industries, and is successfully overcoming its previous "enclave" character by integration into the world energyeconomy. Second, it possesses enormous resources. Third, it hassuccessfully formed a joint-stock system, which furthers the creation of a powerful lobby. Fourth, while pursuing economic advantage, it issimultaneously fulfilling the strategic role of ensuring Russian controlover oil and gas production and transportation in the "near abroad",and preventing Russia from being isolated, by building new pipelinesacross its territory. The activity of the Russian oil and gas producingcompanies and associations in Central Asia is growing, above all inKazakhstan, where a struggle for the control of oil export has alreadystarted. The same is true to a lesser degree of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.   (...)

Last, (...) Russia's interests are not limited geographically. It has alarge Muslim population, eight per cent of the total population or 14

Soon after the seizure of Kabul, the Washington Thinktankocracy and the oilcompanies were almost gleeful, predicting that Taliban control would allow a

US-backed multi-billion dollar pipeline project to bring oil and gas fromCentral Asia, to proceed. Business Week (October 21, 1996) reported that

"Unocal Vice-President Marty F. Miller recently told the U.S. Senate he'sconcerned that Iran, which wants to sell gas to Pakistan and has a compet-ing pipeline in the works, will 'promote conflict in order to advance their own

economic interests.' Still, senior Unocal execs in Islamabad hope theTaliban's grip on Afghanistan will bring stability." [www.abunimha.org/]

 

35update 7

million people. Islam will grow as an issue because of the centrifugalforces in Russia itself. Therefore, it is very important for Russia totake preventive measures to ensure that radical elements do notinfiltrate Russian society.  (...) [Source: By Meena Singh Roy, IDSA; www.idsa-india.org/] 

The Chinese Government Is Not Supporting

The Taliban With Troops

(...) China, which gained admittance to the World TradeOrganization just two days after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, is a full partner in globalization and has an essential and vested interest in seeing US war and economicplans succeed. Further, US economic influence in China, the world'slargest global market, is currently controlling political and militaryevents as China faces a massive energy crisis that only US companiescan resolve. (...)

U.S.-China Economic InterdependenceWith more than 1.3 billion citizens China represents the world's

largest untapped marketplace, both for oil and for consumer goods. Notonly is the economic future of major U.S. corporations dependent uponcontinued access to Chinese markets, the Chinese economy – asdemonstrated by its relentless 15-year effort to gain access to WTO – is as dependent upon U.S. investment and economic assistance. (...)

Many major U.S. corporations are totally committed to ongoing business relations with China and the Chinese government. This wasdemonstrated by China's hosting of the recent APEC conference inShanghai. China is in dire need of continued investment andoperations from U.S. based companies.   (...)

According to the U.S-China Business Council (USCBC) (http://www.uschina.org/), new foreign direct investment in China in 2000alone equaled some $62.66 billion US. This represented a 50.8%increase over 1999. Major U.S. corporations with active investments inChina include: Federal Express, Honeywell, Corning, Ford, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Halliburton, AIG, Nortel, Microsoft, FMC, Cargill,Xerox  (which, according to the Wall Street Journal, is moving itmanufacturing operations to China), Chubb and Emerson Electric.

In the first quarter of 2001 alone, according to the USCBC, selected US exports to China rose by the following percentages: power generation equipment (+48%); electrical machinery & equipment(+17.3%); air and spacecraft (+113.7%); iron and steel (+88.5%). TotalU.S. trade with China is expected to top $107 billion in 2001.

American International Group (AIG), which manages the second largest pool of investment capital in the world, has approximately 40%

 

update 736

of its business operations centered in or around China. AIG began itshistory as an American owned Chinese insurance company, the C.V.Starr Company. (See FTW, Vol. IV, No. 5, August 14, 2001)

Outgoing USCBC President Robert Knapp, in text prepared,apparently within hours of the WTC attacks and China's admission tothe WTO, issued a press release stating, "The WTO negotiations haveconsumed fifteen years," Knapp pointed out, "but they are nowcrowned with success... Never has the need for cooperation betweenthe United States and China, both bilaterally and in the multilateralenvironment, been clearer. The two countries must now worktogether, intensely and in good faith , to ensure that both nationsrealize the maximum benefits from China's WTO participation."

Oil Nowhere is China's dependence upon the United States more clearly

demonstrated than its need for oil and gas to continue its economicexpansion. As discussed – with full sourcing – in the Oct. 15 issue of From The Wilderness (FTW), the Unocal Corporation has resumedlong-standing plans for the construction of a trans-Afghani pipelinesystem  to transport oil and gas from the Central Asian republics tothe Pakistani coast for sale to China and Japan. This 1500-mile pipeline from the oil and gas-rich regions of Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan is the only feasible way to transport oiland gas to China, which is heavily dependent upon imported oil and gas. China cannot build a pipeline across Asia for two reasons.

First, the construction of a nearly 4,000-mile pipeline across thenorthern end of the Himalayas and through the mountains regions of Central China would take decades and is beyond China's technicalabilities. The construction expertise of companies like Halliburton – who's CEO until 2000 was Dick Cheney – is essential.

Second, China has its own Muslim insurgency  in the Uighur region. Islamic fundamentalists there have been trained by the Talibanand are fighting their own campaign for an independent Islamic state.This region is in the Himalayas; just bordering the Central Asianrepublics and any construction undertaken there would, of necessity,demand a two-front battle against terrorists bent on destroying the pipeline and the forbidding terrain as well.

As reported in the Oct. 15 issue of FTW, "Although Unocalostensibly abandoned the project the next year, things have changed since September 11th. An October 10 story from the Pakistaninewspaper, The Frontier Post, opened with: 'The US ambassador toPakistan, Wendy Chamberlain, paid a courtesy call on the FederalMinister for Petroleum and Natural Resources, Usman Aminuddinhere Tuesday and discussed with him matters pertaining to Pak-UScooperation in the oil and gas sector.'

"In a later paragraph the story said, 'Usman Aminuddin also briefed 

 

37update 7

the Ambassador on the proposed Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistangas pipeline project and said that this project opens up new avenuesof multi-dimensional regional cooperation particularly in view of therecent geo-political developments in the region .' [Source: By Michael C. Ruppert, 24.10.01; http://www.copvcia.com/] 

[The pipeline politics may take the following routes said the followingexcerpts written in late nineties. See also the Map 2 & 3.]

The Geopolitics of Oil in Central Asia

The main [pipeline] options are the following:1. The northern route  favoured by Russia. According to this option,

Kazakhstan would expand its existing pipelines to link them to theRussian network and Azerbaijan would build a pipeline from Baku to Novorossisk. The shortcomings of this option have to do with fears of establishing excessive Russian control over the pipeline and also theissue of security, since the pipeline would go through Chechnya.

2. The western route  favoured by Azerbaijan, Turkey, Georgia and the United States. This pipeline route would bring the oil to theGeorgian port of Supsa and then ship it through the Black Sea and the Bosporus to Europe. Turkey insists that the straits cannot cope withincreased tanker traffic and has proposed, instead, to construct a pipeline from Baku to the port of Ceyhan on the TurkishMediterranean coast [which is in fact under construction– Update].However, excessive costs (around $2.9 billion) and serious securityconcerns (this route would pass through unstable Kurdish territory)make this option difficult to implement. Instead, the Bosporus could be by-passed by a pipeline linking the Bulgarian port of Burgas with theGreek port of Alexandroupolis.

3. The southern route.  Economically, this is the most viable option,since Iran already has an extensive pipeline system, and the Gulf is agood exit to the Asian markets. The United States, however, has practically vetoed this option.

4. Eastern route.  This pipeline would transport oil from Kazakhstanto China. It will be the costliest pipeline (covering 2,000 km inKazakhstan alone) but the Chinese consider it as a strategic decisionand are willing to implement it.

5. South-eastern route. The American oil company Unocal has proposed the construction of oil and gas pipelines from Turkmenistanthrough Afghanistan to Pakistan and later to India. This route makessense geographically but not politically, since it will have to go throughunstable Afghanistan. (...) [Source: By Constantine Arvanitopoulos, www.hri.org/MFA/thesis/] 

 

update 738

[Like Russia & China, India and Pakistan Govts. have their respectiveinterests in 'Afghan War', glimpses of which are already cited in the aboveexcerpts. Though the interests of Indian & Pakistan Govts. in this 'war'are very much complex and inter-related to their bilateral relationships,their (economic) interests in the construction of pipeline of oil through

 Afghanistan are one of the most important conditions for their involvementin this war. India Govt. not only throws itself into the service of the USGovt. offering its airport bases in the 'war'(though the US does not seekany military assistance from India), but also has given financial, medicaland even military help to the Northern Alliance for last few years (to bedealt later). Besides this, the compulsion of economy forced the twocountries – India and Pakistan to look into another viable option of 

 pipeline route which may transport natural gas from Iran through Pakistanbypassing Afghanistan (See  Map 4 ). Diplomatic talks are very much goingon to that end. Follow the next excerpt. – Update ]

Iran-India Natural Gas Pipeline

(...) Natural gas is India's fastest growing fuel source. Consumptionhas risen from 0.6 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 1995 to 0.8 tcf in 1999,and is projected to grow at 6.5 percent per year. (...) In June, Indianand Iranian officials  met to discuss a possible Iran-India pipelinethat has been under discussion for many years. An overland routethrough Pakistan is likely to be far cheaper than an offshore project. Astudy by Reliance Industries  estimates that a pipeline could eventuallyhalve  natural gas prices in India. Published estimates suggest thatPakistan  could collect as much as $500 million annually in transitfees. Pakistan and India have both resisted becoming economicallydependent on the other. A pipeline agreement that protected India,Pakistan, and Iran against politically driven disruption of flows,however, could have both economic and political benefits.

India would like to import gas from Bangladesh. Oil companyexperts' belief that substantial new resources are waiting to bedeveloped is bolstered by a recent Petrobangla-U.S. Geological Servicesurvey. Present government policy precludes gas exports, and export toIndia is controversial. Once the new government is in power after theOctober 1 elections, deft Indian diplomacy may be able to improve theodds for a favorable decision. (...) [Source: By Jaideep Singh & Teresita Schaffer, South Asia Monitor, Number 37, September 01, 2001; www.csis.org/saprog/sam37.htm] 

[In this proposed natural gas pipeline, there is tremendous interest fromthe part of Pakistan Govt. also. A website (www.rediff.com)  reports on18.7.2000 that both Iran and Pakistan Govt. were in serious talk thoughthe two govts. have very poor relations between them on the question of Taliban in Afghanistan. Now, the India Govt., so 'energy-hungry', that

 

39update 7

   M  a  p   4  :   I  r  a  n  -   I  n   d   i  a   P   i  p  e   l   i  n  e

    T    H    E    F    U    T    U    R    E    B    L    U    E    P    R    I    N    T

     E   s   t    i   m   a   t   e

    d   g   a   s

     P   r   o

    b   a

    b    l   e

 

    E   c   o   n   o   m

    i   c

 

    d   e   m   a   n

    d

 

    V   o

    l   u   m   e

     (    B    i    l    l    i   o   n   c   u   m

    /   y   r .

    )

    s   u   p   p

    l    i   e   r   s

    (    B    i    l    l    i   o   n   c   u   m

    /   y   r    )

    2    0    0    5

    2    0    1    0

    P   a

    k    i   s   t   a   n

    7 .    5

    1    9

 .    3

    M    E   p   r   o

    d   u   c   e   r   s

    5    (    b   y   p

    i   p   e

    )

    C    A

   p   r   o

    d   u   c   e   r   s

    5    (    b   y

    L    N    G    )

    5    (    b   y   p

    i   p   e

    )

    I   n    d    i   a

    2    0

 .    8

    3    5

 .    5

    M    E   p   r   o

    d   u   c   e   r   s

    1    0    (    b   y   p

    i   p   e

    )

    C    A

   p   r   o

    d   u   c   e   r   s

    1    0    (    b   y

    L    N    G    )

    B   a   n   g

    l   a    d   e   s

    h

    5    (    b   y   p

    i   p   e

    )

    G    A    S    R    E    S    E    R    V    E    S

    C   o   u   n   t   r   y

    R   e   s   r   e   v   e   s

    %    o

    f

    (    T   r    i    l    l    i   o   n   c

    f   t    )

   w   o   r    l    d

   t   o   t   a

    l

    F   o   r   m   e   r

    S   o   v

    i   e   t

    U   n

 .

    1 ,    9

    7    7

 .    0

    4    0

 .    0

    I   r   a   n

    7    4    1

 .    6

    1    5

 .    0

    Q   a   t   a   r

    2    5    0

 .    0

    5 .    1

    U    A    E

    2    0    4

 .    9

    4 .    1

    S   a   u

    d    i    A   r   a

    b    i   a

    1    8    8

 .    6

    3 .    8

    U    S

    1    6    5

 .    1

    3 .    3

    M   a

    l   a   y   s

    i   a

    8    0

 .    2

    1 .    6

    I   n    d   o   n   e   s

    i   a

    7    2

 .    3

    1 .    5

 

update 740

they conclude an agreement with the same notorious UNOCALCorporation  in building a pipeline to tap the natural gas in Bangladesh.UNOCAL  has a plan to build a pipeline from Bangladesh which wiil jointhe existing HBJ (Hazira-Bijaipur-Jagdishpur) pipeline near New Delhi andthen proposes to join the pipeline coming from Turkmenistan or Iran via

 Afghanistan and Pakistan (See  Map 5 ). Thus a huge transit routeoriginating in Turkmenistan to Bangladesh has to be build by theUNOCAL  Corporation  (see the Map 4). What a 'Great Game' it is! Abrochure of UNOCAL Corporation  writes:]

Unocal: India-Bangladesh Natural Gas Pipeline

Proposed Pipeline Project(...) Unocal's (...) proposed 1,350-kilometer (850-mile), 30-inch

diameter pipeline would begin in the Habiganj District in Bangladeshand end at an interconnection with the HBJ [Hazira-Bijaipur- Jagdishpur]   Pipeline in the Delhi area. Approximately 350 kilometers(220 miles) of the pipeline would be located in Bangladesh and 1,000kilometers (630 miles) in India. The pipeline would carry an initialvolume of 5 Bcm of natural gas per year (500 Mmcfd).

The shortfall in gas demand along the HBJ Pipeline is expected toincrease from 10 Bcm per year (955 Mmcfd) in 2005 to over 75 Bcm per year (over 7 billion cubic feet per day [Bcfd]) by 2020. Future gasdemand from customers along the proposed pipeline route is projected to reach 44 Bcm per year (4.2 Bcfd) by 2020.

Potential customers for the Bangladesh-to-India Natural Gas Pipelineinclude: Power and fertilizer facilities serving the markets in central and 

northern India Existing and new customers along the HBJ Pipeline Domestic and industrial users along the proposed pipeline route in

Bangladesh and India. (...)The Bangladesh-to-India Natural Gas Pipeline represents a win-win

 proposition for both Bangladesh and India. For Bangladesh, the proposed pipeline will provide the highest value for the country's gasresources and the opportunity to expand Bangladesh's domestic pipeline

When the Dalai Lama was asked by a CIA officer in 1995: "Did we do agood or bad thing in providing this support [to the Tibetans]?", the Tibetan

spiritual leader replied that though it helped the morale of those resisting theChinese, "thousands of lives were lost in the resistance" and that "the U.S.Government had involved itself in his country's affairs not to help Tibet butonly as a Cold War tactic to challenge the Chinese." (John Kenneth Knaus,

Orphans of the Cold War) [Rogue State, by William Blum]

 

41update 7

infrastructure to meet its energy needs. For India, the pipeline offers along-term, reliable and cost-effective supply of natural gas to fuel itseconomic growth. (...) [Source: www.unocal.com/globalops/b-ipipe.htm] 

[ Times of India (10.11.2001)  reports that UNOCAL  and India Govt.have already made an understanding with the new Bangladesh Govt. tospeed up this pipeline project. It may be a co-incidence, but this pipeline

 project gains momentum just during the fall of Kabul!India Govt. has reportedly provided military and other assistance to the

Northern Alliance to counter the Taliban forces for last three years. It hasa tremendous interest in future composition of govt. in Kabul and thus

 pursues hectic lobbying for make it a party in the 6+2 combination tosettle the future of Afghanistan. All this has/had been done under the veilof countering/fighting 'international terrorism'. The above excerpts amplyclarify that the ruling class of India is keenly interested in building a

 pipeline and thus jumps into the opportunity in uprooting the 'Talibanmenace' from Afghanistan. Follow again. – Update ]

Kabul fall raises India's stakes

(...) The liberation of Kabul by the Northern Alliance has boosted  New Delhi's claim to be taken seriously by the US in working out a post-Taliban arrangement for Afganistan. For the past three years,New Delhi has financed the arms and ammunition used by the

Map 5: India-Bangladesh Pipeline

 

update 742

Alliance in an attempt to contain the Pakistan influence inAfghanistan.  (...)

According to the MEA [Ministry of External Affairs]   official, theUS has so far kept India out of the formal discussions on the post-Taliban dispension in Afghanistan "indeference to the wishes of Pakistan". These arrangements are being handled by the so-called 'six plus two' countries (...). Despite much heartburn, New Delhi has keptits frustration over this under tight control. (...)

Last week in Washington, external affairs minister Jaswant Singhargued for a more substantial Indian role, pointing out that it was thefailure of the 'six plus two' group that had led to the current situation.He noted that besides historical ties, India has suffered from Afghan-origin narcotics and terrorism for the past twenty years. (...) [Source: Times of India, 14.11.2001] 

[An Indian writer writes on the present 'Afghan War'.....]

Energy a Major Factor in Looming Afghan Conflict

Just as the Gulf war in 1991 was all about oil, the new conflict inSouth and Central Asia is no less about access to the region'sabundant petroleum resources, say analysts here.

''U.S. influence and military presence in Afghanistan and theCentral Asian states, not unlike that over the oil-rich Gulf states,would be a major strategic gain,'' says V R Raghavan, a strategicanalyst and former general in the Indian army.   Raghavan believesthe prospect of a western military presence in a region extending fromTurkey to Tajikistan could not have escaped strategists who are nowreadying a military campaign aimed at changing the political order inAfghanistan, accused by the United States of harbouring Osama binLaden. Where the ''great game'' in Afghanistan was once about czarsand commissars seeking access to the warm water ports of the PersianGulf, today it is about laying oil and gas pipelines to the untapped  petroleum reserves of Central Asia. (...)

 Not only can Afghanistan  play a role in hosting pipelinesconnecting Central Asia to international markets – whenever theworld's ''last great oil rush'' happens – but the country itself hassignificant oil and gas deposits .

During the Soviets' decade-long occupation of Afghanistan, Moscowestimated Afghanistan's proven and probable natural gas reserves ataround five trillion cubic feet and production reached 275 million cubicfeet per day in the mid-1970s.

But sabotage by anti-Soviet 'mujahideen' (freedom fighters) and byrival groups in the civil war that followed Soviet withdrawal in 1989virtually closed down gas production and put paid to deals for thesupply of gas to several European countries.

 

43update 7

Major Afghan natural gas fields awaiting exploitation includeJorqaduq, Khowaja, Gogerdak, and Yatimtaq, all of which are located within 9 km of the town of Sheberghan in northrern Jowzjan province.

 Natural gas production and distribution under Afghanistan's Talibanrulers is the responsibility of the Afghan Gas Enterprise which, in1999, began repair of a pipeline to Mazar-i-Sharif city.

Afghanistan's proven and probable oil and condensate reserves were placed at 95 million barrels by the Soviets. So far, attempts to exploitAfghanistan's petroleum reserves or take advantage of its uniquegeographical location as a crossroads to markets in Europe and SouthAsia have been thwarted by the continuing civil strife. (...)

Energy experts in India, such as R K Pachauri who heads the TataEnergy Research Institute (TERI), have long been urging planners inthis country to ensure access to petroleum products from the CentralAsian republics, with which New Delhi has traditionally maintained good relations. (...)

UNOCAL then stated that the project would have to wait untilAfghanistan achieved the ''peace and stability necessary to obtainfinancing from international agencies and a government that isrecognised by the US and the United Nations''.

The 'coalition against terrorism' that U.S. President George WBush is building now is the first opportunity that has any chanceof making UNOCAL's wish come true.

If the coalition succeeds, Raghavan says, it has the potential of ''reconfiguring substantially the energy scenarios for the 21stcentury''. [Source: By Ranjit Devraj, 5.10.2001; www.ips.org] 

[The above excerpt clearly states that the 'war' launched by the USAGovt. also opens up the oil and gas reserves of Afghanistan to themultinational oil companies. Another report corroborates this fact.]

Pipe Dreams: Afghanistan's Coming Gas Boom

With the Taliban destined for military defeat, the US and CentralAsian powers and investors are already looking at Afghanistan'sreconstruction in a post-Taliban era.

(...) The theory goes that once stability is achieved and the post-Taliban government is established, attention will gradually shift fromthe short-term objective  of assisting the starving and war-ravaged Afghani people towards long-term development. Key to this will bethe exploitation of Afghanistan's hydrocarbons reserves and itsstrategic position as a potentially important transit route betweenCentral Asian countries and ports on the Arabian Sea.

A stable regime in Kabul and an end to war will, it is hoped, reviveforeign investment in Afghanistan, which could be poised for adevelopment boom in the wake of the Taliban's defeat. (...)

 

update 744

Investment flow disruptedSince the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, foreign corporations have been

eager to get their hands on Afghanistan's gas reserves, which wereestimated by the Soviets at over 1 trillion cubic metres, roughly thesame size as Europe's second-largest gas producer, Norway. At justunder 100 million barrels, Afghanistan's oil reserves are very modest,although this figure is based on estimates made in the 1970s. Further exploration is bound to reveal more oil and gas discoveries under Afghanistan's rugged and inhospitable terrain.

In recent years, foreign interest in Afghanistan has led to a number of proposals to exploit the country's potential as a hydrocarbons producer and its strategic position for transnational pipelines. Hopingto stimulate the oil sector, in 1998 the Taliban revived the AfghanNational Oil Company which had been abolished after the Sovietinvasion of 1979. This heightened foreign interest, although the civilwar has been a deterrent to most investors. Before 11 September,oil corporations from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) had showna growing interest in exploration , while Pakistan had made plans toassist the construction of an oil refinery in Afghanistan. (...)

Fuelling developmentWith the US likely to be heavily involved in the future of 

Afghanistan, the pipeline stands to become a focus of developmentefforts in a post-Taliban era, attracting large amounts of foreign capital. Not only would it generate over US$100 million per year in transitfees, but any new Afghani government is likely to renew the Taliban'sdemands for an open pipeline to meet local energy needs in a countrywhere the electricity supply has been decimated. (...)

However, an Afghan gas boom will rely on a genuine move towards peace and political stability with little or no residual guerrilla warfare.This could mean building a government that includes former ethnicand religious adversaries. Moreover, the US's ambition to advance thefree market in Afghanistan and the rest of Central Asia may not beenough if the poor remain poor. Economic marginalisation is a problem that needs to be tackled to ensure political stability and theconditions for sustainable development. As long as the militarycampaign continues, the long-term development of the gas and oilsector in Central Asia and Afghanistan in particular will remain a pipedreams.  [Source: www.worldinformation.com] 

[We have now a more or less clear picture of oil-interests (and alsosome political interests, such as strategic interests against either 'Islamicterrorism', ethnic problems, border disputes or threats of rival powers etc.)of several countries in Central Asia and particularly in Afghanistan. Oilis the lifeline of modern capitalism (or imperialism).  So, from the verybeginning, imperialist forces fought innumerable wars, installed puppet

 

45update 7

 govts. in many countries toppling others, patronised autocratic, corruptand murderous regimes in so many countries in the last century just for OIL! They have made the whole of the Persian Gulf a fortress to 'protect'their oil-interests. Iraq is still bleeding under the atrocious policies of theUS-UK led imperialists for a decade. Now Central Asia comes to thelimelight for its abundant oil & gas resources. The people of Afghanistanhave paid for this greed of imperialists and certainly there are moredistress is in store for them unless the people of Afghanistan take theresponsibility of their future in their own hands replacing the Afghanwarlords of various brands.

Now, follow the next excerpt written about the oil-interests of the USGovt and also military preparation to 'protect' this interest. – Update ]

Bush, Capitalism, And The War Crisis

(...) According to the Oil and Gas Journal and World Oil, two principal industry research organs, the proven oil reserves in the world came to approximately 1 trillion barrels as of Jan. 1, 2000. Thisdoesn't include future discoveries that are expected to be much larger.Of these 1 trillion barrels, anywhere from 630 to 675 billion barrelsare in the Persian/Arabian Gulf . Add to that the 30 billion barrelsin Libya  and the oil reserves in this area of U.S. military, politicaland economic domination come close to 70 percent of the world'stotal. In addition, the earth has 5 quadrillion cubic feet of naturalgas reserves, of which 2 quadrillion are in the same region.   This issignificant because of technological leaps made recently in the use of natural gas.

Pentagon In The Persian Gulf The frenzy of the Bush administration and the capitalist

establishment about a war on terrorism has to be seen in the light of their historic political and military objectives. Consider the militaryterror that the peoples in the Persian Gulf   have been under. Accordingto the New York Times, there were extensive U.S. forces in the region prior to Sept. 11. The Navy had 20,000 personnel and two aircraftcarrier battle groups with 70 aircraft. In Saudi Arabia  there are 5,200U.S. troops, mainly from the Air Force, with Patriot missiles, F-15, F-16 and F-117 fighter planes, U-2 spy planes and AWACS flyingcommand posts. In Kuwait  there are 4,800 troops from the Army and Air Force plus a prepositioned, reinforced brigade with two tank  battalions, a mechanized infantry battalion and an artillery battalion.Bahrain  houses 1,000 personnel, mostly naval, and is the headquartersof the Fifth Fleet. In Turkey, 2,000 troops, mostly from the Air Force,are stationed at a base used to fly over Iraq with F-15 and F-16fighters. Other U.S. forces are spread around the United Arab

 

update 746

Emirates, Oman, Qatar  and, in the Indian Ocean, Diego Garcia.Altogether the U.S. has 30,000 troops, massive numbers of aircraft,missiles, artillery and bases for rapid deployment in the region. Theseforces were already there before the current crisis. They threatenedthe people on a 24-hour-a-day basis lest anyone in the region didanything to jeopardize the vast oil, financial and militarily strategicinterests of the U.S.  Now they are being vastly increased. [Source: By Fred Goldstein; www.workersworld.org] 

[It is reported that the deposits of  Alaska and the  North Sea , bothunder the US control, are running out soon (www.hri.org). For thisreason also, the Caspian basin bears enormous importance to the US Govt.Now have a look into the Table 1  which depicts oil & gas reserves/ 

 production capacity etc. of the Central Asian countries.In fact, the 'Great Game' in Caspian sea/Central Asia started with full

steam in May 1998, when the Clinton administration and the CIA luredthe Turkmenistan President S. Niyazov to strike a deal with the oilmultinationals of the USA. A US magazine Time  writes in 1998:]

The Rush for Caspian Oil... the U.S. is Gaining...

(...) Saparmurat Niyazov, President of Turkmenistan, a parched former Soviet republic (...) happens to sit atop immense oil depositsand the fourth  largest natural-gas reserves in the world. So last week  Niyazov got the imperial treatment from the Clinton Administrationand a host of U.S. businessmen eager to start exploiting those richesin earnest.

 Niyazov was put up at Blair House, across the street from the WhiteHouse, an honor reserved for true VIPs. He got 45 minutes withClinton in the Oval Office and conferred with Cabinet officers andCIA Director George Tenet. More than two dozen oil and equipmentcompanies kicked in to sponsor a dinner in Niyazov's honor at adowntown hotel, and 300 of America's top government decisionmakers, business executives and lobbyists thronged the ballroom.

 Table 1 : Brief fact sheet for oil and gas rich CIS republicsCIS Pop Area Per Persons Gas Oil Crude Natural

Republic mn. mn. capita per tr. bn. pipeline pipeline

km income sq.km cft barrels km* km*

Azerbaijan 7.4 0.087 480$ 88 30 5.5 1130 1240

Kazakhstan 15.8 2.7 1,400$ 5.8 65 8 2850 3480

Turkmenistan 4.7 0.49 580$ 9.7 102 1.2 250 4400

Uzbekistan 24 0.45 880$ 53 67 0.6 250 810

*as on 1992  [Source: www.institute-for-afghan-studies.org] 

 

47update 7

 Niyazov is one of the new kingpins of the Caspian Sea and thetreasure it covers. The California-size Caspian, center of the last greatoil rush of this century, laps across a huge mine of liquid gold. Some200 billion bbl., or about 10%  of the earth's potential oil reserves, arethought to lie under and around the sea. At today's prices that could add up to $4 trillion  worth. The Caspian lies in a tough part of theworld, studded with rugged mountains, Chechen guerrillas, dissidentKurds, crowded sea-lanes and unstable and corrupt governments in alldirections. Laying hundreds of miles of pipe through such obstacleswill carry a huge price tag and enormous risks.

The world's energy companies began scrambling for the prize assoon as the Soviet Union broke up, in 1991, and the biggest oil firmsfrom the U.S., Europe, Russia, Japan, China and South Americahave bought into the action, forming consortiums and joint ventureswith local companies to generate the huge start-up costs. Some of thewells are already pumping, and in a few years oil will be flooding outof the Caspian reserves. But how will the precious stuff travel toenergy-hungry consumers? Who will have a hand on the spigots as itflows to market?

The key to that decision probably lies in Baku, capital of Azerbaijanand headquarters of the biggest multinational oil consortium in theregion. (...) So far this year, a 12-company consortium, led by BritishPetroleum and Amoco, has produced 160,000 tons of oil. This early production has traveled out through a 2-ft.-wide pipeline, headingnorth through Azerbaijan and west to the Russian port of Novorossisk on the Black Sea.

But soon, as production picks up, that line and a number of othersalready laid will be too small to handle the job. The consortiums wanta new 3.5-ft.-wide line that will be able to carry up to 1 million bbl. aday in five years. At the bar of the Ragin' Cajun, a hot spot in Baku,a veteran of oil fields from Texas to Siberia explains, "The game'scalled pipeline poker. The Caspian is crazy. It's landlocked. We candrill all the oil you'd ever need. But can we get it out?"

It's a question that has ignited a tense struggle in the region and  beyond. The coastal states of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistangained their independence when the Soviet empire collapsed. All threewant to exploit the riches under their sea without interference fromRussia and Iran, the two other states that rim the Caspian. As major oil and gas producers, Russia and Iran are not overjoyed at their neighbors' good fortune. (...)

While American energy companies joined the Caspian rush early,the U.S. government was slow to get organized. Some of Washington's top power brokers and law firms went to work forCaspian governments or U.S. companies, selling, consulting,lobbying or opening doors. Among them were former Defense

 

update 748

Secretary Dick Cheney  [Now the Vice-President of the USA – Update], former Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen, and JohnSununu, who was George Bush's chief of staff.   Perhaps the mostactive Washington name is former National Security AdviserZbigniew Brzezinski, now a consultant for Amoco. He has longbeen a mentor to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright , and he haswarned the White House for years that the U.S. was making astrategic mistake in paying so little attention to the new centralAsian nations.

Albright and her senior State Department colleagues sat down for afull-dress CIA briefing  on the Caspian last August. The agency had set up a secret task force to monitor the region's politics and gauge itswealth. Covert CIA officers, some well-trained petroleum engineers,had traveled through southern Russia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan andTurkmenistan to sniff out potential oil reserves . When the policymakers heard the agency's report, Albright concluded thatworking to mold the area's future was "one of the most excitingthings that we can do."

American officials frown when outsiders call the battle over theCaspian another "Great Game," the term Rudyard Kipling used for the19th century struggle for influence and control between the British and Russian empires. But another Great Game is what it is. Washingtonwants Caspian oil to flow through many pipelines so that no singlecountry can bottle it up, and is adamantly against having a new pipeline pass through Iran. It is fine if some of the lines run throughRussia, as they already do, but Russia should not be able to turn avalve and shut off all or most of the Caspian flow. (...)

By last fall the U.S. was pressing hard for the option it favors, asystem of oil-and-gas lines starting through Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, running under the Caspian Sea to Baku, then throughGeorgia and Turkey to the Mediterranean. This elaborate scheme isnot an easy sell. The long pipeline would cost about $4 billion to build and add up to $4 to the cost of each barrel of oil it carried. To manycompany executives, it seems easier  to use the southern route throughIran or the northern route through Russia to the Black Sea .

 And why are cluster bombs being used [in Afghanistan]? The British publicshould know about these bombs, which the RAF also uses. They spray

hundreds of bomblets that have only one purpose; to kill and maim people.Those that do not explode lie on the ground like landmines, waiting for 

people to step on them. If ever a weapon was designed specifically for actsof terrorism, this is it. I have seen the victims of American cluster weaponsin other countries, such as the Laotian toddler who picked one up and had

her right leg and face blown off. Be assured this is now happening in Afghanistan, in your name. [Z Mag]

 

49update 7

[Southern route through Afganistan was also under very muchcondideration then, though not reported by Time here. – Update]

"If I had my way," says a senior Western oil executive, "we'd signwith the Iranians. In this part of the world, they are by far the mosttrustworthy partners for a pipeline deal. Terrorism? Who's going to blow up their own pipeline?" But the U.S. option, the east-west line,gathered support from some regional leaders – Azerbaijani PresidentHeydar Aliyev, for example – who thought it would be more secure.(...)  [Source: By Bruce W. Nelan, Time, 4.5.1998] 

[In late 1998, the Washington Post   reported three articles in series onthis 'Great Game' – obviously the big players are the giant multinationalsand the US officials, CIA etc.]

'US Interest In Caspian Sea & Central Asia'

Amoco... educated U.S. officials on the Caspian's wealth(...) Amoco – the largest U.S. investor in Azerbaijan's oil boom   – 

had what it wanted: a promise from Clinton to invite the Azerbaijanipresident to Washington. Six months later the company, whichtraditionally donated heavily to the Republicans, contributed$50,000 to the Democratic Party. In August 1997, Clinton received President Heydar Aliyev with full honors, witnessed the signing of anew Amoco oil exploration deal and promised to lobby Congress tolift U.S. economic sanctions on Azerbaijan .

The ties between Amoco and Azerbaijan – and Amoco's role in pushing the United States closer to this Caspian nation – reflect acomplex new choreography involving oil companies, big powers and regional governments vying for influence in the strategic borderlands between Russia and the Middle East.

The key players are not only familiar companies such as Amoco,Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp., but also senior officials of governments  stretching from Washington to Moscow, and Beijing toTehran. The stakes are enormous financially and, as Clinton's energeticintervention suggested, geopolitically. Azerbaijan, like neighboringTurkmenistan and Kazakhstan, sought to lure American oil companiesand then the U.S. government to help shore up its financial and  political independence.

The ultimate prize is an oil and gas patch potentially larger thanthose discovered three decades ago in the North Sea and Alaska's North Slope. U.S. experts estimate that the region could produce atleast 3 million barrels of oil a day by 2010, worth $14 billion a year at current prices. That is far less than Saudi Arabia but more thanKuwait  – although a vocal minority of analysts believes the Caspian'sreserves have been substantially overestimated. The region's reserves of natural gas – a relatively clean fuel for a world fretting over pollution

 

update 750

and global warming – are the world's third largest behind the MiddleEast and Russia, according to a State Department report.

The drive by U.S. companies to exploit these resources already has produced a political realignment of historic dimensions, including anunprecedented American presence in a region that had been under almost continuous Russian control since the mid-19th century. (...)

Caspian oil also is central to the Clinton administration's internaldebate over U.S. relations with Tehran. Some American oil companiesview Iran as the cheapest, fastest exit route for Caspian oil ; that'scounter to other interests – and Clinton administration policy – favoring continued U.S. government efforts to isolate the Islamic state.

American involvement is just what the leaders of the newlyindependent nations of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistanwanted when they set about early in the decade to woo companiesflying the flag of the world's only superpower.

"They recognized that with the forces they have around them – Russia and Iran – only a strong relationship with the United States provides an opportunity for stability and for not being totallydominated," said a U.S. oil executive who requested anonymity. "Sincethe U.S. government was slow to pick up on the importance of theregion, they forged relations with U.S. business."

"We used oil for our major goal... to become a real country," said Ilham Aliyev, vice president of Azerbaijan's state oil company and sonof the country's president. By investing more than $2 billion in thethree former Soviet republics with most of the Caspian's oil and gas,American oil companies helped revive collapsed economies and end more than a century of economic dependence on Russia. But therewere political and strategic gains as well.

American oil companies became advocates in Washington for theCaspian governments, calling attention to Caspian wealth,supporting Caspian political causes and putting the Caspian on theagenda of Washington's policy debates.

Representatives of American oil companies in Azerbaijan, for example, pressed administration officials   "at every forum, meetingand luncheon" to become more involved in ending a bloody territorialdispute between Azerbaijan and Armenia, according to one U.S.executive. Last year, with Clinton's support, they also lobbiedsuccessfully in Congress to ease U.S. economic sanctions onAzerbaijan imposed in 1992 because of its war with Armenia .

Chevron Corp., the U.S. oil company  with the largest investmentin Kazakhstan, has battled in Moscow and Washington on behalf of aKazakh plan to redirect the country's oil exports from the Russianmarket to hard-currency Western ones – crucial to the economicindependence of Kazakhstan. (...)

The ties that bind the United States to the Caspian region seem

 

51update 7

certain to tighten, if only because U.S. energy companies have fewalternatives as attractive. They are blocked by U.S. policy frominvesting in Iran and Iraq, and prospects elsewhere pale compared withthe Caspian. The blunt truth, according to one American oil man, isthat "there are not a lot of Caspians out there."

How the United States came to be a player so far from home is astory of post-Cold War geopolitics and old-fashioned wildcatters, of aweakened Moscow and an emboldened Washington, of oil and moneyand power. And it is a tale with an ending still being written.

Gas Pipeline Bounces Between Agendas(...) In August 1997, in a bold move that conjured up memories of 

19th-century Turkmen khans staving off would-be Russian conquerors,President Saparmurad Niyazov halted gas deliveries to the Russian-controlled pipeline system that was built during the Soviet era. Niyazovsaid he "smelled old Soviet ambitions" in Russia's use of its pipelinemonopoly to keep Turkmenistan's gas from competing with Russian gasin European markets. Soon, he hinted, Turkmen gas could be shipped south through Iran.

For Niyazov, a product of the Soviet system, the closing of thevalves was a dramatic declaration that business as usual was over. Thesudden availability of 2.8 trillion cubic feet per year of gas previouslycommitted to the Russian pipeline system propelled Niyazov from anobscure Central Asian strongman to a central figure in an intricategeopolitical drama that has drawn in Washington, Tehran, Moscow and assorted regional capitals.

While the prize in the Caspian is an energy patch whose size is believed by many to exceed those in Alaska and the North Sea, theoverarching issue is how to get the commodity out of landlockedCentral Asia.  The politics of pipelines seems as tangled as the routesthemselves, and each route carried its own treacherous obstacles. But asimple ambition had come to unify American policy in the region:Tap the Caspian mother lodes while giving as little leverage aspossible to Russia in the north and Iran in the south.   (...)

Alexander M. Haig Jr., a businessman who had served as NATOcommander and secretary of state, was one of the first Westerners to propose that Niyazov end his dependence on Russian pipelines. Haigarrived in Turkmenistan in 1992 representing a U.S. investmentcompany. The retired general stood apart from other foreign businessmen courting Niyazov's favors. (...) Haig became an unofficial Niyazov adviser and confidant, screening foreign companies and helping arrange a Niyazov visit to Washington in 1993. (...)

Kazakh Field Stirs U.S.-Russian RivalryIn late January, as most of Washington fixated on bawdy revelations

 

update 752

about a former White House intern and the president of the United States, a top Clinton administration expert on Central Asia flew toMoscow for urgent meetings with senior Russian officials. His mission:to salvage a multibillion-dollar American-Russian venture to exploitthe world's biggest oil discovery in three decades – the Tengiz oilfield in the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan .

For four days, Commerce Department troubleshooter Jan H. Kalickimet repeatedly with Russian Oil Minister Sergei Kiriyenko. Kalickisought to disabuse Kiriyenko of the belief, widely held in Moscow,that the joint project to build a 900-mile pipeline from Kazakhstanacross southern Russia to the Black Sea was being sabotaged by theU.S. government and American oil companies.

A project once emblematic of U.S.-Russian cooperation in the post-Cold War era now threatened to become a geopolitical fiasco and thelatest source of tension between Washington and Moscow over controlof Caspian energy riches.

In one sense, the squabble over Tengiz oil fit the Caspian patternalready established in Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. Kazakhstan, likethe two other former Soviet republics, had sought to buttress itsindependence and counter Russian hegemony by luring U.S. oil giantswith its largely untapped energy wealth. Behind the Americancompanies loomed the U.S. government, now eager to further Americancommercial interests and limit the influence of Russia to the north and Iran to the south.

But Kazakhstan was different from its Caspian neighbors – bigger,richer and more intimately lashed to Russia. Sharing a 4,250-mile border with Russia, Kazakhstan also was home to 6 million ethnicRussians and beneficiary of billions of rubles in Soviet energyinvestments. Any American effort to woo the Kazakhs or tap their oil patch provoked suspicious resentment in Moscow. (...)

The Russians countered that the Americans were double-dealing, professing to want partnership with Moscow in building the pipelinefrom Tengiz to the Black Sea while concocting a "EurasianTransportation Corridor" – which the Clinton administration had announced in November – that would bypass Russia altogether with askein of oil and gas lines from the Caspian to European markets. (...)

Tengiz's Sea of Oil(...) Petroleum engineers and geologists believed the 156-square-mile

 patch at Tengiz potentially could yield more than 1 million barrels aday - a third more than the present output of Alaska's Prudhoe Bay.That offered a heady vision for Chevron, then the world's fifth-largestprivate oil company. Years later, a Chevron executive would likenTengiz to "stumbling over the Hope Diamond."

Tengiz was indeed a jewel – one which, like the Hope Diamond,often brought trouble to its possessor. And trouble was quick in

 

53update 7

coming. A year later, on Aug. 31, 1991, as the Soviet Union wasdisintegrating, the government of newly independent Kazakhstan layclaim to all the country's mineral resources. Chevron's deal was in peril, but the company had taken precautions. About the time that thecontract had been signed, Chevron had invited an obscure Kazakhshepherd's son to the United States and entertained him at its SanFrancisco corporate headquarters. Now that shepherd's son was theKazakh president.

 Nursultan Nazarbayev, who had built his career in the KazakhCommunist Party, was quick to see the value of American connections.Years earlier he had sought out the U.S. ambassador to the SovietUnion, Robert S. Strauss, for discussions of American politics over Sunday morning breakfasts. Now, as president, Nazarbayev retained Strauss's Washington law firm, as well as a Manhattan merchant banker, U.S. investment and accounting firms, and other Americanconsultants. (...)

Chevron pledged to invest $20 billion in Tengiz over 40 years.But the contract sharply limited any initial cash outlays. For example,not until Tengiz production reached 250,000 barrels a day would thecompany have to pay a $420 million installment on the purchase price.The provision in effect allowed Chevron to hang on to a substantial portion of its obligated payment until a pipeline had been built to sellTengiz oil in Western markets. [Source: By D. Morgan & D.B. Ottaway, Washington Post, 4-6.10.98] 

[Such was the 'Great Game' played marvelously by the US oilcompanies and the officials of the US Govt. We have already noted in the

 previous excerpts that  Dick Chenny , who is the present Vice-President of the US & former CEO of a US company  Halliburton  (which is abusiness partner of UNOCAL Corporation ) and also many stalwarts of the US administration (present & former), such as  M. Albright, Z.Brzezinski  (now associated with  Amoco , a giant oil company), CIA andall the US oil companies masterminded this 'Great Game' with all their world-famous (read 'notorious') tricks and bribed, purchased, maneouvredthe rulers of the countries to force their way into the oil fields of countrieson and around Central Asia/Caspian Sea.

But a problem remains to be solved, i.e., to build pipelines for marketingthis oil & gas. How the pipeline-politics have been played (and are stillbeing played) by the super- and regional powers (not excluding India) isalready discussed. Now, we are coming back to the point: how theTalibans/Laden made themselves superfluous or 'enemy no. 1' before theUS rulers (and thus block the pipeline/business interests of multinationaloil companies and several countries). Follow again. – Update ]

 

Hidden Agenda Behind War On Terror 

(...) When the Taliban took Kabul in 1996, Washington said nothing. Why? Because Taliban leaders were soon on their way toHouston, Texas, to be entertained by executives of the oil company,Unocal. With secret US government approval, the company offered them a generous cut of the profits   of the oil and gas pumped througha pipeline that the Americans wanted to build from Soviet central Asiathrough Afghanistan.

A US diplomat said: "The Taliban will probably develop like theSaudis did."  He explained that Afghanistan   would become anAmerican oil colony, there would be huge profits for the West, nodemocracy and the legal persecution of women. "We can live withthat," he said.

Although the deal fell through, it remains an urgent priority of theadministration of George W. Bush, which is steeped in the oil industry.Bush's concealed agenda is to exploit the oil and gas reserves in theCaspian basin, the greatest source of untapped fossil fuel on earth and enough, according to one estimate, to meet America's voracious energyneeds for a generation. Only if the pipeline runs through Afghanistancan the Americans hope to control it.

So, not surprisingly, US Secretary of State Colin Powell is nowreferring to "moderate" Taliban, who will join an American-sponsored "loose federation" to run Afghanistan.   The "war onterrorism" is a cover for this: a means of achieving American strategicaims that lie behind the flag-waving facade of great power. (...) [Source: By John Pilger; www.zmag.org/hiddenpilger.htm] 

[Another commentator writes:]

Taliban, US and the resources of Central Asia

(...) The primary factor in determining the twists and turns of Washington's orientation in Afghanistan has not been the threatfrom Islamic extremism but how best to exploit the newopportunities that opened up in Central Asia  following the collapseof the Soviet Union in 1991. Throughout the last decade, the US has been vying with Russia, China, the European powers and Japan forpolitical influence  in this key strategic region and for the right toexploit the world's largest untapped reserves of oil and gas   in thenewly formed Central Asian republics: Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan,Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. The key to the huge potential profits in Central Asia was distribution how to transport the oil and gas from this isolated, backward and landlocked region to the world'smain energy markets. (...)

53

 

55update 7

Southern Afghanistan was, however, also the preferred route for anumber of proposed pipelines from Turkmenistan to Pakistan. AnArgentinean corporation, Bridas,  was the first to enter the race. Thecompany obtained rights in Turkmenistan in 1992 and 1993 to exploreand exploit the country's gas fields, and in 1994, opened up discussionswith the Turkmen and Pakistani governments over the construction of a gas pipeline, leading to the signing of an agreement for a feasibilitystudy in early 1995. Bridas initially attempted to involve US energygiant, Unocal,  in the project. Unocal had plans of its own and later that year signed a separate pipeline agreement, triggering sharp rivalryand a legal battle between the two companies.

All of the pipeline plans assumed that a political solution could befound to the chaotic conditions that existed along the proposed route.Other lesser business interests were also keen to clear out the pettywarlords and militia.  The road from Quetta in Pakistan throughKandahar and Herat to Turkmenistan offered the only alternativetransport route to the northern road to Central Asia through embattled Kabul. The transport companies and truck owners  involved in the profitable Central Asian trade and smuggling rackets were compelledto pay large tolls  to each militia commander as their vehicles crossed his turf a situation they wanted to end.

The US and the Taliban(...) Washington's attitude was clear. Author Ahmed Rashid

comments: "The Clinton  administration was clearly sympathetic tothe Taliban, as they were in line with Washington's anti-Iran policyand were important for the success of any southern pipeline fromCentral Asia that would avoid Iran. (...)" (Taliban: Islam, Oil andthe New Great Game in Central Asia, p. 46)

In fact, the period from 1994 to 1997 coincided with a flurry of USdiplomatic activity, aimed at securing support for the Unocal pipeline.In March 1996, prominent US senator Hank Brown, a supporter of the Unocal project, visited Kabul and other Afghan cities.   He metwith the Taliban and invited them to send delegates to a Unocal-funded conference on Afghanistan in the US . In the same month,the US also exerted pressure on the Pakistani government to ditch itsarrangements with Bridas and back the American company.

The following month, US Assistant Secretary of State for South AsiaRobin Raphel  visited Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia, urginga political solution to the continuing conflict. "We are also concernedthat economic opportunities here will be missed, if political stabilitycannot be restored,"  she told the media. (...) But neither was the USstridently criticising the Taliban on women's rights, drugs and terrorism, which were to form the basis of its ultimatums to the regimein the late 1990s. On all three issues, there was an abundance of evidence, unless one chose to deliberately ignore it. (...)

 

update 756

The fall of KabulIn the mid-1990s, the US attitude to the Taliban was not determined 

 by bin Laden, drugs or democratic rights. If US official Robin Raphelwas ambivalent about officially embracing the Taliban in mid-1996, itwas because Washington was uncertain  whether Taliban fighters werecapable of defeating their opponents and providing a stable politicalclimate for the Unocal project . (...)

"[W]ithin hours of Kabul's capture by the Taliban, the US StateDepartment announced that it would establish diplomatic relations withthe Taliban by sending an official to Kabul – an announcement it alsoquickly retracted. State Department spokesman Glyn Davies said theUS found "nothing objectionable" in the steps taken by the Talibanto impose Islamic law. He described the Taliban as anti-modernrather than anti-Western.  US Congressmen weighed in on the side of the Taliban. "The good part of what has happened is that one of thefactions at last seems capable of developing a government inAfghanistan, said Senator Hank Brown, a supporter of the Unocalproject"  (p.166). Unocal's  response was almost identical. Companyspokesman Chris Taggert welcomed the Taliban's victory, explainingthat it would now be easier to complete its pipeline project thenquickly retracted the statement. The meaning was obvious. The USsaw the Taliban as the best means for ensuring the stability required for the Unocal project, but were not prepared to overtly back  thenew regime until its control was unchallenged.

Speaking in a closed-door UN session in November 1996, Raphel bluntly explained: "The Taliban control more than two-thirds of thecountry, they are Afghan, they are indigenous, they havedemonstrated staying power. The real source of their success hasbeen the willingness of many Afghans, particularly Pashtuns , totacitly trade unending fighting and chaos for a measure of peace and security, even with severe social restrictions. It is not in the interestsof Afghanistan or any of us here that the Taliban be isolated ."

Unocal, with the support of Washington, continued to actively woothe Taliban leaders who, in an effort to obtain the most lucrative deal,were playing the American company off against Bridas. Unocalprovided nearly $1 million to set up the Centre for AfghanistanStudies at the University of Omaha   as a front for an aid program inTaliban-held Kandahar. The main outcome of the company's "aid" wasa school  to train the pipefitters, electricians and carpenters needed toconstruct its pipelines. In November 1997, a Taliban delegation wasfeted by Unocal in Houston, Texas and met with State Departmentofficials during the visit.

Washington's political shiftBut the political winds were already shifting. The key turning point

 

57update 7

came in May 1997  when the Taliban captured the major northern cityof Mazar-e-Sharif and attempted to impose  their religious and socialstrictures on a hostile and suspicious population of Uzbeks, Tajiks andShiite Hazaras. Their actions provoked a revolt in which some 600Taliban troops were killed in intense fighting in the city. At least1,000 more were captured as they attempted to escape and wereallegedly massacred. Over the next two months, the Taliban weredriven back along the northern fronts, in what became their worst-ever military defeat. In 10 weeks of fighting, they suffered more than 3,000dead and wounded, and had another 3,600 fighters taken prisoner.

Mazar-e-Sharif was not simply a military setback. The Talibanregrouped, seized the city again in August 1998, butchered thousandsof Shiite Hazaras "men, women and children" and almost provoked awar with Iran by murdering 11 Iranian officials and a journalist.However, the events of May 1997 revealed the deep animosity amongnon-Pashtuns towards the Taliban. It signified that the civil warwould inevitably be a protracted one and, even if the Talibansucceeded in taking the opposition strongholds in the north,rebellions and further political instability were likely.

In the immediate aftermath of the Mazar-e-Sharif debacle, severalcrucial decisions were taken in Washington. In July 1997, in anabrupt policy about-face, the Clinton administration ended itsopposition to a Turkmenistan-Turkey gas pipeline running acrossIran.  The following month, a consortium of European companiesincluding Royal Dutch Shell  announced plans for such a project. Aseparate deal struck by Australia's BHP Petroleum  proposed another gas pipeline from Iran to Pakistan and eventually India.

In the same period, the US and Turkey jointly sponsored the idea of a "transportation corridor, with a major oil pipeline from Baku inAzerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey's Ceyhan port on theMediterranean. Washington began to urge Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan to participate in the plan by constructing gas and oil pipelines, respectively, under the Caspian Sea, then along the samecorridor. Unocal's  plan for a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan nowfaced competition. Moreover, these rival proposals were along routesthat promised to be, at least in the short-term, more politically stable.Both Bridas and Unocal pushed ahead with their plans in southernAfghanistan but the prospects looked increasingly distant. In late 1997,Unocal Vice-President Marty Millar  commented: "It's uncertain whenthis project will start. It depends on peace in Afghanistan and agovernment we can work with.   That may be the end of this year,next year or three years from now, or this may be a dry hole if thefighting continues."

A parallel shift in Washington's political rhetoric also began to take place. In November 1997, US Secretary of State Madeline Albright

 

update 758

set the new tone during a visit to Pakistan. She took the opportunityto denounce the Taliban's policies towards women as "despicable" and to pointedly warn Pakistan that it risked international isolation.Washington began to exert pressure on Pakistan over the Taliban'sinvolvement in the heroin trade and the dangers of "Islamic terrorism".

The change in US policy became complete  when, in the aftermathof the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August1998, the Clinton administration launched cruise missiles againstOsama bin Laden's training camps at Khost in Afghanistan. Bin Ladenhad returned to Afghanistan in May 1996 after a six-year absence,during which he had become increasingly bitter over the role of theUS in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. He began issuing publiccalls for a jihad against the US in August 1996. It was only after theAfrican bombings, however, that Washington began to demand,without providing any evidence of bin Laden's involvement, that theTaliban hand him over.

Unocal  suspended its pipeline project and pulled all its staff out of Kandahar and Islamabad. The final nail in the coffin came at the end of 1998, when oil prices halved  from $25 to $13 a barrel, renderingUnocal's pipeline project uneconomic, at least in the short term. At thesame time, the Clinton administration's demands for the handover of  bin Laden, as well as action on drug control and human rights, becamethe basis for a series of punitive UN sanctions imposed on the Talibanin 1999 and then strengthened earlier this year.

Despite the intense pressure exerted on the Taliban and also onPakistan, none of the US demands were met. In 1998 and 1999, theTaliban launched new military offensives and extended its control,driving its opponents into pockets of territory in the north east. Butthe civil war was no closer to any conclusion, with Russia and Irancontinuing to supply and arm the Taliban's opponents.   The UNsanctions had the effect of preventing any of Washington's rivals fromgaining an advantageous position in Afghanistan, but brought the USno closer to establishing a firm foothold in the region .

The US administration has now seized upon the September 11attacks on New York and Washington to press ahead with its long-held designs on Central Asia . Without providing any evidence, Bushimmediately held bin Laden responsible for the devastation in the USand issued a series of ultimatums to the Taliban regime: hand over binLaden, shut down Al Qaeda installations and give the US access to all"terrorist training camps". When the Taliban rejected his open-ended demands, Bush gave his generals the signal to unleash thousands of  bombs and cruise missiles on Afghanistan, with the openly avowed aimof bringing down the regime.

If one were to believe the Bush administration and the internationalmedia, the sole purpose of Washington's extensive and costly war 

 

59update 7

against one of the world's most backward countries is to catch binLaden and to break up his Al Qaeda network. But as this historicalreview demonstrates, Washington's objectives in Afghanistan arenot determined by fears about terrorism or concerns over humanrights. The US has for the first time established a military presencein the Central Asian republics with troops in Uzbekistan and itsmilitary campaign ensures that it will dictate the terms for anypost-Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Even if bin Laden were killedtomorrow and his organisation destroyed, Washington has nointention of retreating from these first steps towards the dominationof this key strategic region and its vast energy reserves. [Source: By Peter Symonds, 24.10.2001; www.wsws.org] 

[Thus the US Govt's heart changed. It is not for capturing Laden "liveor dead", not for any 'tears' for human rights 'abuse' by the 'terrorists',but the war campaign is just to establish "a farm foothold in the region".

 And now, under the guise of 'fighting terrorism' they are now bombing Afghanistan, making tons of rubbles (more tonnage than the wreckage of World Trade Centre), playing its age-old notorious game to install inKabul a puppet govt., and thus making inroads for the businessopportunities for US/UK big oil companies. It is certain that very soon wecan find the news of UNOCAL Corporation, Chevron, Exxon-Mobil,British Petroleum etc. investing heavily for their postponed pipeline (andalso fresh oil exploration) projects.

Still, few sceptic readers find that the 'Great Game' for oil & gas is notthe real motive behind the 'Afgan War'. For them awaits another news

 flashed in the website recently. Watch the following. – Update ]

Britain: Reports admit this is a war for oil

Britain's media has hardly distinguished itself during the US bombing of Afghanistan, other than for its willingness to parrot theofficial line emanating from Washington and London. But it has proved increasingly difficult for the press barons to maintain a united  journalistic front.

A combination of factors the growing concern within Europe over the direction of the US campaign, or lack of it; a fear that the US will be the sole beneficiary of the war; and even a reaction against themounting absurdities that constitute the official raison d être for targeting Afghanistan have given rise to a number of reports thatdepart from the formulaic invocation that the ongoing militarycampaign is a war against terrorism.

The most significant of these reports was an item on the October25 edition of Channel Four television's flagship seven o'clock newsprogramme. Reporter Liam Halligan  was introduced by the programme's anchorman posing the question, "But is there another, less

 

update 760

well advertised motive  for the bombing of Afghanistan?" Halligananswered in the affirmative, adding, "The Gulf War was largelyabout oil. You won't hear it said often but, inadvertently, this oneis too." Halligan called oil "an important subtext to the struggleover Afghanistan."

He noted that the US, which consumes 22 million barrels a day, is by far the world's biggest oil importer. He remarked upon the presentreliance on the Gulf states, such as Saudi Arabia, which producesseven million barrels a day, but also drew attention to the productionof four and a half million barrels a day in the former Soviet Union.

Halligan continued, "Apart from Russia, it's these newlyindependent Central Asian states that are key . Already 20 billion barrels of oil reserves have been found in Khazakhstan and there could  be much more. The oil and gas so far discovered in these parts isworth $3 trillion in today's prices." Getting this oil to Westernmarkets was, Halligan stated, "the culmination of the Great Game.The struggle for influence in Central Asia is the last great oil rush,as the West tries to reduce dependence on the Gulf."

Channel Four went on to explain the importance of Afghanistan inthis regard. Russia had built its own pipeline from Kazakhstan to theBlack Sea. In order to compete, Western oil corporations could build  pipelines along a number of routes. But by far the most economicalwould be from Central Asia through Afghanistan, to Pakistan.

"That,"  said Halligan, was "a major reason the US  unofficiallybacked the Taliban  in the mid-90s, when American oil men were planning such a pipeline. But when the Taliban turned it's back onUncle Sam, Western oil money got scared."

As well as Channel Four's coverage, two articles have appeared inthe Guardian  newspaper that deserve to be noted. The Guardian,which is considered home to Britain's liberal intelligentsia, is generallysupportive of the war, but critical of certain aspects of its conduct.This was reflected in an op-ed piece by the radical environmentalistGeorge Monbiot  entitled "America's pipe dream", which sets out toexplain how "A pro-Western regime in Kabul should give the USan Afghan route for Caspian oil" .

(...) Monbiot insists, "The invasion of Afghanistan is certainly acampaign against terrorism, but it may also be a late colonialadventure." He explains, "Afghanistan has some oil and gas of itsown, but not enough  to qualify as a major strategic concern. Itsnorthern neighbours, by contrast, contain reserves, which could becritical to future global supply. In 1998, Dick Cheney, now US vice- president but then chief executive of a major oil services company,remarked: 'I cannot think of a time when we have had a regionemerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as theCaspian.'  But the oil and gas there is worthless until it is moved. The

 

61update 7

only route which makes both political and economic sense is throughAfghanistan."

The West's options for moving oil are limited by its desire to prevent a strengthening of either Russia or Iran. It has an addedbenefit, in that "pipelines through Afghanistan would allow the US both to pursue its aim of" diversifying energy supply "and topenetrate the world's most lucrative markets" in south Asia .

Monbiot's article acknowledges a debt to the work of AhmedRashid, the author of the recently published 'Taliban: Militant Islam,Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia' , and a correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review and the Daily Telegraph. Rashid documents how in 1995, the US oil company Unocal  started negotiating to build oil and gas pipelines from Turkmenistan, throughAfghanistan to Pakistan and on to the Arabian sea. This required "asingle administration in Afghanistan, which would guarantee safepassage for its goods."  Monbiot notes, "Soon after the Taliban took Kabul in September 1996, the Telegraph reported that: oil industryinsiders say the dream of securing a pipeline across Afghanistan is themain reason why Pakistan, a close political ally of America's, has beenso supportive of the Taliban, and why America has quietly acquiesced in its conquest of Afghanistan."

(...) Monbiot cites a statement by the US energy informationadministration immediately prior to the September 11 outrages:"Afghanistan's significance from an energy standpoint stems from itsgeographical position as a potential transit route  for oil and naturalgas exports from central Asia to the Arabian sea. This potentialincludes the possible construction of oil and natural gas export pipelines through Afghanistan". He concludes his examination with therelated observation, "If the US succeeds in overthrowing the Talibanand replacing them with a stable and grateful pro-Westerngovernment  and if the US then binds the economies of central Asia tothat of its ally Pakistan, it will have crushed not only terrorism, butalso the growing ambitions of both Russia and China. Afghanistan, asever, is the key to the western domination of Asia ."

The next day, Andy Rowell  wrote in the Guardian  on the sametheme in his article "Route to riches". He begins, "As the war inAfghanistan unfolds, there is frantic diplomatic activity to ensurethat any post-Taliban government will be both democratic and pro-West. Hidden in this explosive geo-political equation is the sensitiveissue of securing control and export of the region's vast oil and gasreserves."  Rowell draws attention to an article in Military Review,the journal of the US army, which states, "As oil companies build oil pipelines from the Caucasus and central Asia to supply Japan and theWest, these strategic concerns gain military implications." He citesUnocal's insistence  that "construction of the pipeline cannot begin

 

update 762

until a recognized government is in place in Kabul that has theconfidence of governments, lenders, and our company."

All three reports are based on information that is both freelyavailable and common knowledge within the media and the politicalestablishment. Indeed Rowell described Rashid's work on the Talibanand the US as "the book Tony Blair has been reportedly reading sincethe conflict started." Far from saving the mass media from opprobrium,therefore, these reports stand as an indictment of a more generalreadiness to regurgitate whatever lies and propaganda they are asked to by the powers that be. [Source: By Chris Marsden, 27.10.2001; www.wsws.org] 

 Voices Against The War Cry

[It was the best of times; it was the worst of times."I am running out of demons. I am running out of villains" – said

General Collin Powell of the United States in 1991, after the 'fall of communism', after the end of so-called 'cold war' (Quoted in TorontoStar  ,  April 9, 1991  – referred in  Monthly Review, November 2001 ).They searched the "demons" in the Middle East, in Columbia-Venezuela,in Serbia-Bosnia – in the name of war against 'terrorism'/'rogue state'/ 'global drug trafficking'..... After the September 11 episode, finally theyhave identified one of the "villains" in Afghanistan – a country where"during the past twenty years, about 2.5 million Afghans have died as adirect or indirect result of war – army assaults, famine or lack of medicalattention. In other words, every year 1,25,000 or about 340 people a day,or 14 people every house or 1 in about every five minutes, have been either killed or died because of this tragedy. (...) The number of Afghan refugeesis even more tragic. According to more precise statistics the number of 

 Afghan refugees outside of Afghanistan living in Iran and Pakistan is 6.3million. If this figure is divided by the year, day, hour and minutes, in the

 past twenty years, one person has become a refugee every minute." (By Mohsen Makhmalbaf  , noted Iranian Film-maker, in his article "Limbsof No Body: The World's Indifference to the Afgan Tragedy" , part of which has been reprinted in the  Monthly Review, November 2001 ). And,they have started carpet bombing over this already devastated land sinceOctober 7 in the name of "fight against global terrorism".

It was the best of times; it was the worst of times."Why do they hate the United States? Why do they want to get back at

the United States or kill so many innocent people? You have to go back intime. It didn't just start now. The United States has always been in other 

 people's business. and that is what you get as a result" – said a studentof New York after the September 11 event. One street vendor said: "The

 

63update 7

United States is minding eveybody's business, trying to institute their  policies and imperialism across the world. It's not right. What we wentthrough on September 11 is a horrible thing. Other countries go throughthat every day because of United States." (www.rwor.org] 

These are the reflections of voices of some of the US people after the11th September. These are the voices which are not televised, printed bythe media controlled by the big transnational companies. In fact, the globalmedia, the mind-setter of confused billions working for the global rulers is

 playing its role in a "most responsible" manner. It is chattering in thetune of Bush and Blair. They report that most of the protests against theUS 'war cry' is coming from the muslim dominated countries organisedby the fundamentalists; they report in such a manner that depicts all themuslims in the world are either fundamentalist or terrorists. This mediacompletely whitewashes the news of protests occurred in the very countrieswhich are behind the attacks on Afghan people overtly and covertly. In

 fact, not only the third world people, but different sections even from theUnited States, Europe, Australia are continuously raising their voicesagainst the 'Afghan War' and the protests are going on still now!

'Update', as part of this worldwide protest is raising its voices againstthe war-mongering policies of the US imperialism and is presenting here aseries of reports of these protests, largely neglected by the so-called 'free','independent' media. We regret to inform that to give stress on protests inthe US and Europe, we cannot collect protest-reports from Africa & Latin

 America. – Update ]

I. Voices From The USA[It is widely reported by the media that racial conflict has engulfed the

USA since September 11 and the blacks-Arabs-Sikhs-Muslims are beingattacked by the whites. But what they have not reported is that a lot of 

 people of different sections are thinking in a different way opposed to thecampaign of the ruling class of the USA. Many of the Americans nowhave started to ask themselves (and also to the USA Govt.) why suchterrorist attack happened on September 11; why the USA is beingtargetted; why the people of so many countries hate the USA? This is aray of hope in the midst of darkness of atrocities, murderous acts of theUSA Govt. under the cover of lies heaped up on Afghan people. The

 American people now have started to raise their voices of protests againstthe 'war cry' of the US Govt. and racial conflicts occured very soon after September 11 & October 7. Here are some of the reports. – Update ]

 

update 764

 A. Protests After September 11:

 A Message from the International Action Center 

On September 29 we have planned to demonstrate against the Bushadministration's reactionary foreign and domestic policy and the IMFand World Bank. In light of the current crisis, with its tragicconsequences for so many thousands of people, we have refocused thecall for our demonstration to address the immediate danger posed byracism and the grave threat of a new war. All those who opposeracism should stand shoulder to shoulder with our sisters and brothersin the Arab, Muslim and other communities of color who are thevictims of violence, scapegoating, harassment and intimidation in aracist frenzy that's being created throughout the United States. We callon all people-Black, Latino, Asian, Arab, Native and white-to stand together and say no to racism. We urge all organizations to jointogether at this critical time.

CALL TO ACTION  National March in Washington DC September 29Tell George Bush: WE SAY NO TO RACISM AND WAR!(...) The government is attempting to take away our civil liberties

and to create a climate in which it is impossible for progressive peopleto speak their mind. The Bush administration is attempting to takeadvantage of this crisis to militarize U.S. society with a vast expansionof police powers that is intended to severely restrict basic democraticrights. If you believe in civil liberties and oppose racism and war, joinus on September 29 in front of the White House. MARCH ANDRALLY Saturday, September 29, 11 a.m. In front of the White House. [Source: www.iacenter.org; 14.9.2001] 

No To U.S. Military..... Stop U.S. Wars!

On Monday evening, Sept. 17, at its general meeting, the LosAngeles September 29 Coalition overwhelmingly united & voted to goforward with our planned protest demanding 'No to FTAA! No toPLAN COLUMBIA! Stop OPERATION GATEKEEPER! Full Rightsand Legalisation to Immigrants!'

With over 70 people in attendance representing many of thedifferent organizations and individuals who have been actively workingon all the different aspects of building for S29, we discussed theimpact of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center &Pentagon on the plans the L.A. S29 Coalition has made. (...) Anannouncement was made at the start of the meeting that the"convening organizations" that had initially called for national S29actions were temporarily postponing/suspending their planned S29

 

65update 7

mobilizations. (...) The discussion and struggle focused on what we, inthe Los Angeles S29 Coalition, should do. (...)

Many of us felt in light of these developments we must speak outeven louder and we must oppose US plans to go to war and their callsfor retaliation and the attacks on our Arab and Muslim brothers and sisters. We felt that this was within the spirit of our overall slogan -opposing US military intervention. Now more than ever! We agreed that some modifications to the demands and the speakers at S29 should  be made to include a strong message of NO TO U.S. WAR! and noscape-goating of Arab and Muslim people. (...)

 In unity and struggle, Jamie Lee (Refuse & Resist!) Edith Lagos (Youth Student Network of October 22 & Youth are

 the Future! We Demand A Better World Coalition!) [Source: The Los Angeles September 29 Mobilization] 

Congresswoman Against Use of Force

"We need to step back," said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.). "We'regrieving. We need to step back and think about this so that it doesn'tspiral out of control. We have to make sure we don't make anymistakes."

(...) The Capitol Police began guarding Lee on Saturday because of death threats she received after voting against a resolution authorizingPresident Bush to use military force against anyone associated with lastweek's terrorist attacks. The resolution passed 98-0 in the Senate and 420-1 in the House. Lee's was the sole dissenting vote.

"In times like this," she said, "you have to have some memberssaying, 'Let's show some restraint.' " (...)

War, she believes, is not the most effective way to fight terrorism."Military action is a one-dimensional reaction to a multidimensional problem," she says. "We've got to be very deliberative and think through the implications of whatever we do."

This is not the first time Lee has stood alone against war. In 1999,during the crisis in Kosovo, she was the only House member to voteagainst authorizing President Clinton to bomb Serbia. (...) [Source: By Peter Carlson, September 19, 2001; Washington Post] 

Join a new anti-war coalition: International

 A.N.S.W.E.R. (Ac t Now to Stop War & End Racism)

We join with people all over the world in condemning the horrifickillings of thousands of persons in the September 11th attacks on theWorld Trade Center and the Pentagon. Our most heartfelt sympathiesand condolences are with those whose loved ones were lost or injured 

 

update 766

on September 11, 2001. At this moment, we would all like to taketime to reflect, to grieve, to extend sympathy and condolences to all.But we believe that we must do more. We must act now.

We are assembling International A.N.S.W.E.R. to call for worldwiderallies against war and racism. On September 29, there will be anational march and rally at the White House in Washington DC, aswell as marches on the West Coast of the U.S. and around the world.We call on all people of conscience and progressive organizations totake up this call and organize rallies around the world.

Unless we stop President Bush and NATO from carrying out a new,wider war in the Middle East, the number of innocent victims willgrow from the thousands to the tens of thousands and possibly more.A new, wider U.S. and NATO war in the Middle East can only lead toan escalating cycle of violence. War is not the answer.

We must also act against racism. Arab American and Muslim peoplein the United States, in Europe and elsewhere, as well as other communities of color, are facing racist attacks and harassment in their communities, on their jobs and at mosques. Anti-Arab and anti-Muslimracism is a poison that should be repudiated.

The U.S. government is attempting to curb civil liberties and tocreate a climate in which it is impossible for progressive people tospeak their mind. The Bush administration is attempting to takeadvantage of this crisis to militarize U.S. society with a vast expansionof police powers that is intended to severely restrict basic democraticrights. On September 29, tens of thousands of people had planned todemonstrate against the Bush administration's reactionary foreign and domestic policy and the IMF and World Bank. In light of the currentcrisis, with its tragic consequences for so many thousands of people,we have refocused the call for our demonstration to address theimmediate danger posed by increased racism and the grave threat of anew war. We call on people to demonstrate around the world on thatday. Now is the time for all people of conscience, all people whooppose racism and war to come together. If you believe in civilliberties and oppose racism and war, demonstrate on September 29 atFreedom Plaza – 14th St. and Pennsylvania Ave. NW and around theworld. October 12-13 will be International Days of Action Against War and Racism. We urge all organizations internationally to join together at this critical time and take action. [Source: http://www.iacenter.org/answer_callger.htm-ger] 

In the days after 11.9.2001...

The following are selections from reports received by the'Revolutionary Worker' and excerpts from statements by organizations

and individuals in the wake of the attacks of September 11

 

67update 7

Speakout at UC BerkeleyFrom a volunteer at Revolution Books: The same day as the

airliner crashes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon,several thousand University of California/ Berkeley students andother locals filled Sproul Plaza in an evening rally.   I joined the rallyfrom about 7:30 to 9:30, and it was still going on when I left. Thiswas a candlelight vigil with short speeches, songs and music, and aspeakout. The very first to communicate to the crowd sung Lennon's"Imagine." This became a theme throughout the night – that we mustcooperate with our brothers and sisters around the globe. This certainlycame out in the tolerant and respectful reception to the words of theArab and Muslim speakers who condemned the attack and called for  peace instead of retaliation.

The long line of speakers included Students for Palestine, HillelHouse, a Muslim Students organization, the UC chancellor, an anti-racist organization of students, and lots of students who just wanted tospeak.

Speakers and artists offered support to the Arab and Muslimcommunities in the U.S., mourning and condolences for the dead.There was a linking of the crashes with the U.S.-led predatory"globalism"--and there were repeated pleas to demand that the U.S. notretaliate. I should mention that some spoke against the notion of  jumping to conclusions about who perpetrated these crashes.... I would characterize a significant section of listeners as questioning, friendly,still neutrals. I must say that the more I think about it, the more I'm personally moved by what I witnessed at UCB.

NYC: "Racists Go Home"

From an RCP supporter:While I was walking home last night (September 13) I noticed some

commotion going on in front of the Mosque at 11th Street and FirstAvenue in Manhattan. I found out that three young racists had stood in front of the Islamic Mosque yelling hostile slogans. They carried anAmerican flag and a sheet that said, "We will lay our vengeance onthee." A crowd of about 50 New Yorkers, passing by, organized themselves on the spot and yelled: "Racists go home! Arabs are notthe problem!" The police came, announced that the racists had 

Let us recall the words of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman,who had this to say to the Serbian people during the US bombing campaignin 1999: "It should be lights out in Belgrade: every power grid, water pipe,road and war-related factory has to be hit....[W]e will set your country backby pulverizing you. You want 1950? We can do 1950. You want 1389? We

can do 1389." [www.wsws.org]

 

update 768

"freedom of speech" and dispersed the opposing crowd into smaller groups. People gathered again and chanted "Racists go home!" untilthe racists did leave.

Union Square in the Heart of Manhattan(...) At a candlelight vigil Friday night, among the thousands who

turned out, a section of the crowd were wearing the following slogans"Islam is not the enemy," "War is not the answer," and "Work for global peace and justice."

Other Cities:  There have also been reports of a rally of over 300people in downtown Oakland on September 12 to "OpposeArabophobia and war-mongering" and a march of 200 against warand intolerance at the University of Arizona. On September 15, 200people gathered in Atlanta to oppose war and pogromist attacks onMuslims. Many of those attending were part of the campaign tofree Jamil Al-Amin. [Source: Revolutionary Worker, September 23, 2001; www.rwor.org] 

 B. Protests Organised On 29th September

[At the call of the ANSWER, protests have been organised at differentcities in the USA on 29th September. Some of the reports.....]

Thousands Fill Streets Of D.C. to Protest War 

Police officials estimated the crowd in the two marches at about7,000, while some organizers put the figure closer to 25,000, the samenumber that protested the World Bank and International MonetaryFund meetings in the District in April 2000. That time, there werehundreds of arrests, skirmishes between police and protesters, and some property damage.

War was on everyone's mind, it seemed yesterday. (...)Yesterday, at a three-hour rally at Freedom Plaza before a march to

the Capitol to stress those concerns, Leslie Sauer, 55, a landscapearchitect from rural New Jersey, held a sign that read, "8 millionAfghan refugees need food now, not war and terror." Many protesterscriticized U.S. foreign policy, which they say has exacerbated tensionsin the Middle East.

"We rain bombs on Iraq, then we're surprised we're hated," the Rev.Graylan Hagler, minister at the District's Plymouth CongregationalChurch, told thousands gathered there. More rallies were scheduled inother parts of the country (...)  [Source: Washington Post, 30.9.2001] 

Thousands take the streets in Washington, DC

  (...) The September 29 D.C. protests drew people of all differentnationalities from around the country, as well as people from

 

69update 7

Indonesia, Palestine, Africa, Afghanistan, India, Colombia, Honduras,the Philippines, and other countries. (...)

The day started at 9 a.m., as hundreds gathered near Union Stationin an action against capitalist war and globalization called by the Anti-Capitalist Convergence. Black-clad anarchists mixed with pacifist directactionists carrying puppets, the Revolutionary Communist YouthBrigade, youth carrying Palestinian flags, and others. One banner said,"Destroy Imperialism Not Afghanistan." A giant banner declared, "ToStop Terrorism, Stop Terrorizing."

From all directions, robo cops in body armor unloaded off of buses,moved into the streets and the park, and surrounded the people. After a stand-off, the youth broke out in a fast-paced march, heading toward the IMF and World Bank.

Riot cops flanked the youth on both sides of the street. Black and red flags waved. At certain points, the marchers broke out in arunning charge, making the cops go double time to keep up. At oneintersection, police cars and a van tried to drive into the crowd. Copsopened their windows and pepper-sprayed people. Other cops moved infrom the front and began hitting people in the chest with batons. Butthe youth stood their ground and pushed back. The march wentforward.

When the youth tried to break off to the left near the White House,riot cops swarmed in to block them. But despite other attacks and some beatings, the marchers succeeded in rallying at the IMF and World Bank. In the plaza in front of these global institutions of misery,hundreds of riot police penned in the youth on all sides. The mediawere pushed out of the immediate area. People chanted "let us go" and were joined by others outside the lines. One young woman yelled atthe cops, "So this is the 'freedom' you want us to fight for?"

Finally the cops marched the anti-capitalists down to wherethousands were gathered at a rally against war and racism, called bythe coalition ANSWER – Act Now to Stop the War and End Racism.The rally of 10,000 plus started on 14th and Pennsylvania. People thenmarched to the Capitol. Beautiful manifestations of solidarity with the

Since World War II, the U.S. government has given more than $200 billionin military aid to train, equip, and subsidize more than 2.3 million troops andinternal security forces in more than eighty countries, the purpose being not

to defend them from outside invasions but to protect ruling oligarchs andmultinational corporate investors from the dangers of domestic anti-capitalist

insurgency. Among the recipients have been some of the most notoriousmilitary autocracies in history, countries that have tortured, killed or other-wise maltreated large numbers of their citizens because of their dissenting

political views, as in Turkey, Zaire, Chad, Pakistan, Morocco, Indonesia,Honduras, Peru, Colombia, El Salvador, Haiti, Cuba (under Batista), Nicara-gua (under Somoza), Iran (under the Shah), the Philippines (under Marcos),

and Portugal (under Salazar). [Against Empire, Michael Parenti]

 

update 770

 people of Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, and elsewhere came alive.From many angles and perspectives, the crimes of the U.S. against

the world were exposed. One affinity group carried coffins--written onthem were the numbers of people killed by U.S. war and sanctions inEast Timor, Kosovo, Colombia, Iraq, Panama, Somalia, El Salvador,Guatemala, Lebanon and Rwanda. Speaking at the capitol, a NativeAmerican woman said, "Native people have been terrorized for 500years!" Activists involved in various issues – such as police brutality,Mumia Abu-Jamal, sweatshops – along with Refuse and Resist!,religious people, peace activists, Filipino anti-imperialists, and manyothers connected their struggles to the movement vs. war and repression. A drum corps led an affinity group of the Bread and Puppet Theater. Dozens of people carrying silhouettes representing theAfghani people did a call and response: "Food and Medicine for thePeople of Afghanistan, Now! Or Innocent Millions Will Die." People'ssigns and voices spoke strongly about standing together with Arab and Middle Eastern brothers and sisters in the U.S. and internationally. (...)

 [Source: Revolutionary Worker, 7.10.2001; www.rwor.org] 

20,000 March In San Francisco

In a strong display of a growing grassroots movement, thousands of  people streamed into Dolores Park in San Francisco Sept. 29 to protestthe escalating war drum of the Bush administration.

Demonstrators also brought a strong message opposing racistscapegoating of Arab, Muslim and South Asian people living in theUnited States. (...) At one point the entire demonstration left DoloresPark and wound its way through the Mission District, the mostmultinational community in the city.

During the march, protesters stopped at two stores which had had their windows broken out earlier in the week. One is a popular caférun by an Iranian and the other a Pakistani restaurant. In a moment of solidarity, a march leader told the cheering protesters that there is noroom for this type of racist attack and offered to organize securityteams to protect these stores at night if it were necessary.

After the march returned to Dolores Park, the rally continued for another two hours. (...)

Labor Council Supports RallyUnion activist Dave Welsh read a statement from the San Francisco

Labor Council, which passed a resolution in support of the rally. (...) [Source: Workers World, 4.10.2001; www.workersworld.org] 

 

71update 7

C. Protests On & After October 7 

New York City and Around the War 

 Immediately after the U.S. began the bombing of Afghanistan onSunday, October 7, people began marching and protesting in New

York City, elsewhere in the U.S., and around the world 

New York

On October 7, a protest that had been called before the bombing began swelled to 10,000 people as word spread about what washappening. The march went from Union Square to Times Square. Thefollowing evening, 500 people in a "day after" demonstration marched from the armed forces recruiting center in Times Square to Rockefeller Center. The Sunday action was organized by the Not In Our NameCoalition, and its slogan was "Our Grief Is Not A Cry For War!" It began with an interfaith service by Muslim, Christian, Jewish and Hindu religious leaders. (...)

Two nights before the bombing began, 200 people rebuilt thememorial for the victims in Union Square. After September 11, UnionSquare became a center where people went to collectively grieve.Pictures of victims were surrounded by thousands of bouquets of flowers and candles and messages of many different kinds. Thememorial became the site of mass debates involving thousands as people struggled to understand why September 11 happened. This scenewent against the atmosphere of blind obedience the authorities havetried to create. In the middle of the night on September 24 the cityordered the park cleaned and the memorial destroyed. Everything wasremoved – including the pictures of the victims. (...)

Since the memorial went back up again on October 6, there has been a running battle as the authorities take down the memorial and  people put it back again. (...)

ChicagoFor two evenings, October 7-8, the relatively quiet atmosphere of 

downtown Chicago was disrupted by the sound of pounding drums and the chants of anti-war marchers. They gathered in the shadow of Chicago's two federal buildings and took the streets, their hearts filled with anger and outrage over the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan. OnSunday, after hundreds who rallied in federal plaza were joined byhundreds more arriving from a prayer vigil, more than 800 people took the streets of the "Loop." The next night, over 350 people rallied, and hundreds marched to the Michigan Avenue bridge, blocking traffic, The police arrested four protesters.

The actions were called by the Chicago Ad-Hoc Coalition AgainstWar and Racism, comprised of 35 "local peace, social action, and religious groups" together with hundreds of individuals, along with

 

update 772

another coalition of several religious and community organizations thatincludes the American Friends Service Committee, the Eighth DayCenter for Justice and the Chicago Religious Leadership Network. The protests were a mix of young and old, both longtime activists and those coming to their first protest. Though a majority were white, thosewho gathered included people from the Latino and Black communitiesas well as from places as distant as Palestine, the Philippines, Pakistan,and Iran.

S.F. Bay AreaOn October 7, over 3,000 people marched over three miles through

the streets of San Francisco to protest the start of U.S. bombing. (...)In Palo Alto, 500 demonstrated in an action sponored by the Palo AltoPeace and Justice Center and the Stanford Community for Peace and Justice. The next day hundreds of students rallied at noon on UCBerkeley's Sproul Plaza and marched through Berkeley. That eveningover 1,000 people gathered at the Berkeley BART (rapid transit) stationfor a BART alert. (...)

Other U.S. CitiesSeattle, October 7: 800 gathered at the federal building to protest

the U.S. attacks. There were student walkouts from the University of Washington and Seattle Central Community College on Monday Oct.8. About 50 people joined the SCC walkout, including some studentsfrom area high schools.

Los Angeles, October 7: 200 rallied at the Westside federal buildingonly a few hours after the U.S. bombing began. That evening, theFilipino group Bayan and others rallied downtown against the war. OnOctober 9, students at USC protested a speech by Madeline Albright,the U.S. Secretary of State in the Clinton administration and a major figure in the U.S. killer sanctions against Iraq. A student newspaper,The Trojan Horse, called the lecture part of USC's "Distinguished War Criminal Series," which has included Margaret Thatcher, HenryKissinger and Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf. (...) [Source: Revolutionary Worker, 21.10.2001; www.rwor.org] 

Police lay siege to peaceful march

A police attack on peaceful anti-war marchers in Hartford, Conn.,on Oct. 25 is generating widespread outrage. Eighteen people werearrested on charges ranging from "disorderly conduct" to "inciting ariot." Some of the charges are felonies that carry sentences up to 10years. At an Oct. 26 arraignment, bail bonds were set exorbitantlyhigh--from $15,000 to $50,000. But supporters raised enough money tospring everyone by that night.

The only excuse that police officials or the big business media could 

 

73update 7

offer for the cops' laying siege to activists is that there was no permitfor the demonstration. But local activists note that past protests havetaken place without permits and without incident.

The political climate in the state is very much influenced by thefact that the military-industrial complex has a strong base inConnecticut. The state is home to a submarine base at Groton and other military installations. (...)

Delivering an important messageSage Radachowsky, a sociology graduate student at the University of 

Connecticut, was one of those arrested. He told Workers World, "Thedemo was organized by a loose network of people: students and nonstudents, young and old. The message was to protest the bombingsin Afghanistan and U.S. foreign policy, though there was nocentralized message other than being for peace and against all formsof oppression."

The rally began about 4:30 at Bushnell Park with speeches and skits. A half hour later the number grew to more than 200 activists.They spilled into the street and marched toward Sen. JosephLeiberman's office to deliver an anti-war petition and protest his position as a pro-Pentagon hawk.

Radachowsky described, (...) "Police were present from the beginning, although their numbers increased. Police became more and more confrontational, running their cruisers at high speed up to peopleand stopping only feet before hitting them. They brought out canistersof pepper spray. (...) Police also shoved with billy clubs but peopleabsorbed the shoves and continued." Radachowsky said, "Then policeshouted out 'Those three!' and 'Him!' and arrested some people. Manywere standing on the sidewalk when arrested."

A busload of riot-clad police arrived and tried to disperse the crowd."Shame, shame," protesters jeered at police who beat and pepper 

sprayed Vittorio Lancia as the man shouted, "I have asthma!" At leastone of Lancia's ribs was broken. (...) [Source: By Leslie Feinberg, 8.11.2001; www.workersworld.org] 

 D. Protests Of The Workers

[In the war cry of the US Govt., the workers of the US could not beswayed by the campaign of the Govt. through the mainstream media. Onthe other hand, different workers' organisations opposed the war cry.]

S.F. Labor Council Statement

The following statement was adopted by the S.F. Labor Council atits delegates meeting on Monday, September 24, 2001. (...)

The San Francisco Labor Council (AFL-CIO) joins the nation and the world in mourning the devastating loss of life resulting from the

 

update 774

vicious attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, as wellas the crashed plane in Pennsylvania. We condemn the criminality of those attacks and those responsible. (...)

 No one, in this country or any other, should suffer the fate of thevictims in these attacks. We demand that the perpetrators of thesecrimes be brought to justice. The United States has a responsibility toestablish with irrefutable facts the identity of those who were behind these attacks. The tragic attacks of September 11 should be treated asa heinous crime rather than an act of war.

As we mourn this tremendous loss of life, we declare our resistanceto efforts to use this tragedy to engage in military actions that canlead only to more carnage and senseless loss of life. (...)

In the face of such sorrow, we urge all people, particularly membersof the labor family, to stand united against prejudice, hatred and intolerance wherever it arises. Within our own borders, we call uponall in our communities to join us in immediately confronting any anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, anti-Sikh or other anti-immigrant hate speech or acts of violence, whether in our neighborhoods, our workplaces, or inthe media. We strongly oppose efforts to curtail the rights of immigrants and refugees, including expulsion of suspect foreignnationals without due process.

We also declare our resistance to efforts to use this tragedy to curtailour civil liberties. Militarization of our society inevitably leads toerosion of civil liberties and workers' rights. (...) [Source: International A.N.S.W.E.R.; www.internationalanswer.org] 

Minnesota Strike: Standing Up To A Wartime Crisis

They had no choice. On Oct. 1, a week before Pres. George W.Bush ordered a full-scale war against the people of Afghanistan, morethan 28,000 Minnesota state employees rejected the state's offer and walked off their jobs. With more than half the state workers on strike,government services shut down. (...)

In no time, Governor Ventura ordered nearly 1,000 National Guard members to scab in 120 state-run hospital care centers, replacing socialworkers, psychologists, nurses' aides, food workers and janitors.Sending in these troops offers no comfort to those who need expertand professional care.

Once the bombing of Afghanistan began, these attacks from on

The other day, the parents of Greg Rodriguez, a young man who died inthe World Trade Center, said this: "We read enough of the news to sensethat our government is heading in the direction of violent revenge, with theprospect of sons, daughters, parents, friends in distant lands dying, suffer-

ing, and nursing further grievances against us. "It is not the way to go...notin our son's name." [Z Mag]

 

75update 7

high, draped in patriotic fervor, were ratcheted up against theMinnesota unions and their members. As of this writing, both partieshave agreed to begin mediation talks on Oct. 11.

The workers had been without a contract since June. (...)The two unions involved are the Minnesota Association of 

Professional Employees, representing about 10,500 members, and theAmerican Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,representing about 19,000. These unions rejected a contract that onceagain offered wages less than the inflation rate and demanded givebacks in their health plans.

AFSCME, representing the lower-paid work force, was offered aone-time 3-percent raise over two years. The professional associationwas offered 4 percent over the same period. (...)

There is a rising movement of anti-war, anti-racist and anti-globalization forces. It is a young movement that has shownremarkable courage in recent protests and rallies. They have taken theroad to struggle, as shown by the tens of thousands who protested inWashington, San Francisco, Chicago, Los Angeles and other cities inthe U.S. only a week before the Pentagon bombing of Afghanistan. Itis necessary that the labor movement take this road and join them. (...) [Source: By Milt Neidenberg, 14.10.2001; www.workersworld.org] 

New York Labor Against War On Oct. 4 a newly formed group, New York City Labor Against

War, held a press conference at Union Square here to affirm that thereare many progressives in the labor movement who will not go alongwith the Bush administration's assault on Afghanistan.

The group issued a statement signed by nine local union presidentsand hundreds of other union members that called for a just and effective response to Sept.11 based on five demands: no war; justice,not vengeance; opposition to racism and defense of civil liberties; aid for the needy, not the greedy; and no labor "austerity."

The statement was read by Michael Letwin of the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys, one of the nine union presidents to sign on. Theother eight are Larry Adams of the Postal Mail Handlers Local 300;Barbara Bowen of the Professional Staff Congress; Arthur Cheliotesof Communications Workers Local 1180; Jill Levy of the AmericanFederation of School Administrators Local 1; Maida Rosenstein of theAutoworkers Local 2110; Joel Schwartz of the Civil ServicesEmployees Local 446; Brenda Stokely of AFSCME Local 215; and 

When terrorists attack, they're terrorizing. When we attack, we're retaliating.When they respond to our retaliation with further attacks, they're terrorizing

again. When we respond with further attacks, we're retaliating again.(Norman Solomon, media critic, 'Good and bad terrorists')

[Quoted in 'Rogue States' by William Blum]

 

update 776

Jonathan Tasini of the National Writers Union Local 1981. (...) [Source: By Deirdre Griswold, 10.10.2001; www.workersworld.org] 

Workers Against The War: Canada

(...) The Canadian Union of Postal Workers is joining a growingcoalition that is calling for an end to Canada's participation in the war against Afghanistan. The September 11 Peace Coalition is organizingdemonstrations across Canada on Nov. 17 calling for an end toCanadian troops' participation in the war and against corporateglobalization.

"The alternative to war is to begin rebuilding the world'sinfrastructures and to provide the things that working people need, likefood, shelter, medical care, education, jobs and justice," CUPW leader Deborah Bourque, co-chair of the September 11 Coalition, said on Oct.22. The Nov. 17 demonstrations will coincide with the G-20 FinanceMinisterial meetings in Ottawa. "The government must use theupcoming meetings of the G20, IMF and World Bank in Ottawa toassess current agreements and policies of institutions such as the WTO,IMF and World Bank against Canadian values of promoting peace,social justice and security for all people," said Steven Staples of theCouncil for Canadians.  [Source: 8.11.2001; www.workersworld.org] 

 E. Protests Of The Women & Students

Revolutionary Association of the Women of 

 Afghanistan (RAWA)

Statement on the terrorist attacks in the U.S.The people of Afghanistan have nothing to do with Osama and his

 accomplices (September 14, 2001)On September 11, 2001 the world was stunned with the horrific

terrorist attacks on the United States. RAWA stands with the rest of the world in expressing our sorrow and condemnation for this barbaricact of violence and terror. RAWA had already warned that the United States should not support the most treacherous, most criminal, mostanti-democracy and anti-women Islamic fundamentalist parties becauseafter both the Jehadi and the Taliban have committed every possibletype of heinous crimes against our people, they would feel no shamein committing such crimes against the American people whom theyconsider "infidel." In order to gain and maintain their power, these barbaric criminals are ready to turn easily to any criminal force.

But unfortunately we must say that it was the government of theUnited States who supported Pakistani dictator Gen. Zia-ul Haq increating thousands of religious schools from which the germs of Taliban emerged. In the similar way, as is clear to all, Osama BinLaden has been the blue-eyed boy of CIA. But what is more painful is

 

77update 7

that American politicians have not drawn a lesson from their pro-fundamentalist policies in our country and are still supporting this or that fundamentalist band or leader. In our opinion any kind of supportto the fundamentalist Taliban and Jehadies is actually tramplingdemocratic, women's rights and human rights values. (...)

The U.S. government should consider the root cause of this terribleevent, which has not been the first and will not be the last one too.The U.S. should stop supporting Afghan terrorists and their supportersonce and for all.

 Now that the Taliban and Osama are the prime suspects by the U.S.officials after the criminal attacks, will the U.S. subject Afghanistan toa military attack similar to the one in 1998 and kill thousands of innocent Afghans for the crimes committed by the Taliban and Osama?Does the U.S. think that through such attacks, with thousands of deprived, poor and innocent people of Afghanistan as its victims, will be able to wipe out the root-cause of terrorism, or will it spread terrorism even to a larger scale? (...)

The U.S. government and people should know that there is avast difference between the poor and devastated people of Afghanistan and the terrorist Jehadi and Taliban criminals.

While we once again announce our solidarity and deep sorrow withthe people of the U.S., we also believe that attacking Afghanistan and killing its most ruined and destitute people will not in any waydecrease the grief of the American people. We sincerely hope that thegreat American people  could DIFFERENTIATE between the peopleof Afghanistan  and a handful of fundamentalist terrorists. Our heartsgo out to the people of the U.S.

Down with terrorism! (...)

Women's Resistance Conference, Canada, Oct. 1:"There will be no emancipation for women, anywhere on this planet

until the Western domination of this planet is ended. And more thanever, we need to heed those words, especially as all of us are beingherded into the possibility of a massive war at the behest of the United States.... This new war against terrorism that's being launched, it's veryold. And it's a very old fight of the West against the rest. (...) TheWest for 500 years has believed that it can slaughter people intosubmission and it has not been able to do so. And it will not be ableto do so this time, either." [Source: Revolutionary Worker, October 14, 2001; www.rwor.org] 

'In, "Give War A Chance" (Philadelphia Inquirer) David Perlmutter  warnsthat if these states do not do Washington's bidding, they must: "Prepare for 

the systematic destruction of every power plant, every oil refinery, everypipeline, every military base, every government office in the entire country...the complete collapse of their economy and government for a generation."

 

update 778

Defying US War Moves

(...) Students from dozens of college campuses – from WashingtonState to California, Alabama to Vermont--represented on themicrophone. Three hundred students came from Oberlin College inOhio, out of a student body of 2,500. One Oberlin student who had  been mobilizing on the campus to protest the IMF/World Bank told the RW that after Sept. 11 even more students wanted to come to D.C.to protest the war threats. (...) [Source: Revolutionary Worker, 7.10.2001; www.rwor.org] 

II. Voices From The Europe & Australia[European ruling class have extended their whole-hearted support to the

Bush Govt's 'Afghan War'. In fact, Tony Blair, British Prime Minister,has appeared as a most trusted lieutenant of the US administration and of the oil barons of both British & US brands. Meanwhile, different sectionsof the people of both the USA and Europe have been united to raise their voices against the war cry of their respective govts. It is interesting tonote that in these European protests, some voices of the European workers–Left-communists have been heard. Here are some of the excerpts.–Update ]

1. Britain: Biggest Anti-War Protest

Beautiful weather helped turn one of the largest demonstrations for 10 years into a lively carnival against the war. Coaches from all over the UK streamed into London bringing large numbers of students, tradeunionists, socialists, pacifists and other campaigners to the demo.

The nine coaches from Birmingham were not enough – two hundred others wanting to come were left behind. There were simultaneous protests in Glasgow, Liverpool and elsewhere. Police estimate 20,000on the march, but we knew there were many more. (...)

The march was called by CND and supported by the Stop the War Coalition, Socialist Alliance, Green Peace and many Middle Eastern,Muslim and Christian groups. There were large numbers of tradeunion, trades council and political banners, but most inspiring werethe masses of students and colleges with banners against the war and the hypocrisy of the imperialists. (...) [Source: Workers Power Global, 11.10.2001; www.workerspower.com] 

2. France:

The anti-war movement in France has been fragmented and relatively low-key. In Paris, there are two collectives mobilising people.

The first, involving the trade unions, the Communist Party (PCF),the Greens and the LCR, is based on a pacifist call for peace (LutteOuvrière refused to sign). In the run-up to the US attack on

 

79update 7

Afghanistan, the collective basically proposed to "wait and see",refusing to mobilise in advance of the war.

This led a group of anarchists and anti-globalisation protestors toset up the "Faut réagir" ("We must react") collective, which hasorganised a series of small demonstrations.

The day after the US attacks began, a few hundred militantsgathered in Paris as close to the US embassy as the police would allowthem to get. Three days later, on October 11, with the support of themain anti-war collective, around 6,000 people marched in Paris, and hundreds more demonstrated in other cities.

For the moment, the Paris demonstrations are mainly "business asusual", principally composed of those forces who were alreadymobilised against the war. There were, for example, very few youth onthe Thursday 11 October demonstration. In other cities, such as Lille,however, there has been a good response from youth to anti-war agitation, in particular by the REVOLUTION youth group. (...)

One final ray of hope: the message of "national unity" is mostdefinitely not being heard by the working class. A whole number of sectors have been on strike over the last week or so, culminating on16 October when hundreds of thousands of public sector workers -including the key sector, the railway workers – went on strike over wages and conditions, causing massive disruption, especially on publictransport. Attempts by the media and the right wing to portray themovement as somehow weakening the war effort were rightly ignored  by both strikers and union leaders. There must be no social peace intime of imperialist war! [Source: Workers Power Global, 20.10.2001; www.workerspower.com] 

France: Reports on 10.11.2001France is the third most important participant in the attack against

Afghanistan, with 2000 troops, pilots and sailors currently involved.(...) At the same time as the leaders of French imperialism were blowing hot and cold in Washington, the French anti-war movementhas started to rouse itself. After nearly a month of virtual inaction,two successive weekends should see major demonstrations across thecountry. On Saturday 10 November the international day of actionagainst the WTO will be marked by a series of demonstrations acrossthe country, organised by ATTAC. Their aim is to get around 80,000 people on the streets – the same number as during the Seattle meetingin 1999. Many demonstrators will no doubt draw the link between thenew round of imperialist commercial domination being prepared atQatar and the imperialist military offensive against Afghanistan.

A week later, Saturday 17 November, a coalition of over 50 groupsopposed to the war has called a national day of action, with a major demonstration in Paris, demanding the end of the war. As in previous

 

update 780

mobilisations, a key factor will be the willingness of the FrenchCommunist Party to come off the fence and throw itself into the battleagainst the war. However, given that the PCF still has four ministersin the Jospin pro-war government and apparently intends to keep themin place come what may, a whole-hearted PCF participation seemsunlikely. (...)  [Source:Workers Power Global; www.workerspower.com] 

3. Italy:Thirty thousand people took to the streets of Rome on 27 September 

in an anti-NATO and anti-war demonstration. It proved that Italianmilitants and youth are carrying on the tradition of Genoa. Even moreso the 200,000 strong Perugia-Assisi march of 14 October proved the point. It is certainly true that this latter march is a historical lyreactionary one. It has been organized by Franciscan monks since 1961and is aimed at a utopian catholic peace between bombers and bombed.

 Not for nothing were the clergy deeply concerned that this year'sdemonstration could take on an altogether different, anti-imperialist and anti-war content. Which it did. Never before has that demonstrationattracted so many people, the vast majority of whom were once againyouth. Despite the intentions of its reactionary organizers, and despiteconcessions to the clergy's demands to keep the militancy of demonstrators under control, this was a massive anti-war demonstration.

The Perugia-Assisi march suggests that hundreds of thousands of Italian youth are still on a Genoa footing and have not fallen fouleither to "anti-terrorist" propaganda, to pacifism or to despondency.

Indeed, on 25 October thousands and thousands of secondary schoolstudents from all over Italy were out on the streets to demonstrateagainst the war, against increased military spending and against cutsin education. The schools will once again be the focus of attentionwhen a one-day national strike of teachers takes place on 31 October. [Source: Workers Power Global, 27.10.2001; www.workerspower.com] 

4. Germany:Ten thousand people marched in Berlin on 10 November against the

war. Mainly members and supporters of the far left, it was a militantdisplay of anger at the government¹s support for the war againstAfghanistan. Demonstrations and pickets were held in 25 towns againstthe imperialist war and against the WTO. (...)

The two main trade union federations – IG Metall and Ver.di – each of them organising about three million workers have called for astop to the bombing and called on their members to protest against thesending of German troops. The union leaders and the parliamentariansof the PDS and those in the SPD and the Greens who oppose thesending of troops do so for pacifist reasons. They are not calling for an anti-imperialist struggle against the government.

 

81update 7

But in a situation where about 60 per cent of the population opposeGerman involvement in the war, this is enough to make Schröder and Fischer nervous. From his trip in China he publicly attacked IGMetall. According to the chancellor and SPD chairman, the unionshould keep out of politics and confine itself to "its" own business (i.e.concentrate solely on wage bargaining). (...) [Source: Workers Power Global, 10.11.2001; www.workerspower.com] 

5. Greece:

Greece has been the site of some of the most massive protests inEurope against the U.S. war drive. On Oct. 25, the GeneralConfederation of Greek Workers (GSEE), the largest labor federationin Greece, announced that it would mobilize against the war. An Oct.25 French Press Agency report announced that the GSEE "called for workers to protest the U.S. strikes against Afghanistan."

The GSEE is a social democratic trade union, traditionally allied with the ruling Panhellenic Socialist Party (PASOK). The Greek PrimeMinister is also the president of PASOK, and has supported the U.S.war. So the GSEE's call for opposition to the war marks a clear break with its traditional political allies. [Source: Workers World, 8.11.2001; www.workersworld.org] 

6. Belgium

About 1,000 protesters marched through the Belgian city of Liegeunder banners reading ``Make Love, Not War'' on Saturday as EUfinance ministers discussed the September 11 assaults on the United States. The organizers, a broad alliance of social rights groups and left-wing activists dubbed D14, headed toward the barricaded conference center where the ministers were meeting, saying theywanted to deliver a letter demanding peace and more social rights. (...)

A police spokeswoman said several people bound for Liege weretaken off a train on the way from Antwerp and held for identitychecks. She gave no other details but one protester who said he wason the train reported that police arrested four people and confiscated  banners and a couple of pocket knives. (...)

Police had kept a low profile on Friday when some 11,000 peoplefrom trade unions and mainstream non-governmental groups braved  pouring rain to stage a peaceful, carnival-style rally and took a similar tack at the outset in Liege on Saturday. (...)

Saturday's protest, gathering anti-capitalists, students, communists,environmentalists and anarchist flag-wavers, has been shunned by thetrade unions and NGOs that marched on Friday, but many of their demands are the same. (...) [Source: International A.N.S.W.E.R.; www.internationalanswer.org] 

 

update 782

7. Sweden:

Last Saturday there was a second major demonstration in Stockholmagainst the war. It turned out to be somewhat smaller than the firstone, about 2,500. Speakers included people from the Left Party, MPEva Zetterberg, who said that her party fully supports the measurestaken by the EU "against terrorism".

The Left Party is in favor of the UN taking control of the situationwith peaceful methods; the party constitutes – together with the Greens – the right-wing of the anti-war movement.

Other speakers were from the CWI, who also took the opportunityto launch the new International Socialist Resistance banner. The CWIsection is taking a neutral position between the imperialist forces and the Afghans forces who put up resistance. They want us to put our trust in the international protest movement and the labour movementof the region (...) They have no understanding whatsoever of criticalsupport or the anti-imperialist united front.

The CWI is – together with the Worker Communist Party of Iran – the main force slightly to the left of the center in the movement. Thecenter consists of the Socialist Party (USF) and reformists and Stalinists. (...)

The rest of the centre is made up of different Stalinist groups,solidarity groups and left reformists. They are mainly anti-American, but dislike the burning of UK and US flags, which we have done onseveral occasions. (...)

The coming Saturday will see a third major demonstration. Thefocus will now be the US embassy. The AM were accused of terriblethings only ten days ago for wanting to protest outside the USembassy; now the CWI is taking the initiative to march against theembassy. For once, they are tailing the left. [Source: Workers Power Global, 27.10.2001; www.workerspower.com] 

8. Austria:

On 8 October – the day after the imperialist attacks started – around 1,000 people assembled in the central square of Vienna and marched to the US embassy. The mood of the people was angry and manyslogans against the war and the USA were chanted.

On 11 October around 5,000 school and university studentsdemonstrated against cuts in the social and education budget. These protests were already planned since long but because of the war many people chanted also anti-imperialist and anti-war slogans.

Another small anti-war demonstration happened two days later withseveral hundred participants.

A bigger demonstration under the slogan "Stop the war" is planned for the 26 October for which not only the Austrian left is mobilising

 

83update 7

 but also a number of immigrant and Islamic organisations. (...) [Source: Workers Power Global, 20.10.2001, www.workerspower.com] 

9. Slovakia:

Anti-war protests are starting now also in Slovakia. Last week a petition action was organised in the centre of Bratislava which is thecapital city. On 18.10. a small rally was held. Two speeches were held  by a representative of Revolutionary Socialist League (ZRSo) and theLRCI. (...) [Source: Workers Power Global,20.10.2001  www.workerspower.com] 

10. Australia:

Marches have filled the streets of Melbourne and Australia widewith chants against George Bush, against John Howard and againstwhat is being clearly called the racist war. (...)

Over 1500 people in Melbourne the day the bombing started and 3000 on a Sunday the weekend before. There have been weekly vigilsin the city square in Melbourne and mobilizations, all of significantsize around the rest of the country. Including a march of 2000 inBrisbane the weekend that the Commonwealth Heads of Governmentwere to meet.

Most significant has been the broadness of these demonstrations and the large numbers of Muslims, men and women who have been prominent both in the demonstrations and on the speakers platform.

The immediate link between war and racism has been important.Australia has a shocking track record for locking up refugees indetention centers. It has a shocking history of race relations with theindigenous people and now can add numerous attacks on Muslims inthe wake of the conflict. (...) [Source: Workers Power Global, 20.10.2001; www.workerspower.com] 

11. Around The Europe

According to a posting on the UK Indymedia site, "On October 7, 8and 9 hundreds of protests and demonstrations throughout the world said no to the war.

There were actions in more places even than the weekend of September 29 and 30, and with only one day to prepare." Some of thelargest protests listed on the Indymedia site include:

Oct 7: 4000 in  Brussels, Belgium; Oct 8: 2000 in  Barcelona, Spain;2000 in  Brisbane, Australia; 1200 in Copenhagen, Danmark ; 1500 in Melbourne, Australia ; 1500 in Oslo, Norway; 6000 in  Rome, Italy;Oct. 10: 3000 in  Berlin, Germany. (...) [Source: Revolutionary Worker, 21.10.2001; www.rwor.org] 

 

update 784

III. Voices From Asia[There is a large-scale media-coverage sponsored by the USA about the

 protests launched in Third World countries, particularly in Asia, that these protests are being organised by Muslim fundamentalists organisations. In fact, even in most of the Indian newspapers, pictures of large protestrallies/meetings/burning of effigies of Bush etc that occurred in Karachi/ Peswar/Manila of Muslim people have been published. But, on the other hand, they forget carefully to publish the pictures/reports of the protestsorganised in several Asian countries including India/Pakistan/Bangladesh(protests were demonstrated even in Israel, which were not anything

 fundamentalist/zionist but anti-war!) etc. initiated and led by different progressive anti-war organisations. Some such neglected reports...–Update ]

1. Pakistan:

Protesters Block Traffic In Islamabad

The Communist Workers and Peasants Party (CMKP) of Pakistanheld a demonstration Oct. 21 of 200 people in Islamabad. Accordingto a participant, this anti-imperialist action against attacks on Afghanistan took over Murree Road and blocked traffic as participants walked for a kilometer.

At a seminar in Peshawar, Afzal Kha moosh, general secretary of the CMKP, told the audience that U.S. imperialism is in search of mineral resources in Central Asia and can only be defeated through ananti-imperialist struggle.

Ghinwa Bhutto, president of the Pakistan Peoples Party, and former Finance Minister Dr. Mubasher Hassan also addressed the seminar and showed their solidarity.

Syed Azeem, president of the CMKP, said that his party's anti-imperialist campaign is going well and has already led todemonstrations in Lahore and Okara. In the next phase the CMKPwill demonstrate in Multan, Kasoor, Faisalabad and Pesha war, wherethey expect more than 3,000 people, including guests from abroad.

Among the many anti-imperialist resolutions passed at the seminar was the following: "In the opinion of this session, putting a prefix of 

George Kennan – mastermind of the US Cold War strategy [said]: "...wehave about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its population ...Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships whichwill permit us to maintain this position of disparity... To do so, we will haveto dispense with sentimentality... We should cease to talk about vague andunreal objectives such as human rights, the rising of living standards, and

democratization" [Quoted by Richard Knox]

 

85update 7

'Islamic' before terrorism is unjustifiable and this propaganda on behalf of imperialists is wrong and we condemn it. We are of the opinionthat the U.S. offensive is not a crusade, nor is it a clash of civilizations, but it is a war to capture the oil reserves of CentralAsia."  [Source: www.workersworld.org] 

The View From Pakistan

[The following is taken from an analysis of the situation in Afghanistan by Taimur Rahman of the Communist Workers and 

Peasants Party of Pakistan.](...) Some people believe that we should choose the "lesser of the

two evils." Others believe that we should support the Taliban. We propose that both solutions are incorrect.

What Is To Be Done?

(...) [I]t is the foremost (but by no means the sole) duty of Pakistanicommunists to expose the role of the Pakistani ruling class in relationto its support of the Taliban. In a word, the Pakistani communists mustcut the hand that feeds the Taliban. We would become apologists of the Pakistani ruling class if we did not oppose the Taliban.

However, we cannot let our opposition to the Taliban merge, under any circumstances, with the rhetoric of the U.S. imperialists or their stooges in Pakistan. Therefore, in the current historical setting, wemust play the tricky role of opposing the U.S. imperialists and their stooges in Pakistan, in such a manner that we simultaneously educate people about the history of fundamentalism.

We have to show the connection between fundamentalism and theruling class of Pakistan. We must uphold that a genuine anti-imperialist struggle has to be a struggle against the ruling classes of Pakistan and Afghanistan. (...)

Anti-Imperialist Movement In Afghanistan And PakistanMany people with good intentions think that they should support

the lesser of two evils because there is no other option. This iscompletely wrong.

In Afghanistan and in Pakistan there is a communist movementworking towards an anti-imperialist revolution. These movements have been suppressed by the ruling classes and fundamentalists backed byimperialists, but they have not been eliminated. Because of thesedifficult circumstances, the communist parties have been forced to takea low profile.

Movements in other countries can help these anti-imperialist forces by pulling back and destroying imperialist intervention that shores upanti-communist fundamentalism. They would NOT help the communistsof Pakistan and Afghanistan by passively allowing imperialistintervention to strengthen one fundamentalist group over another.

 

update 786

Rest assured that even in war-ridden Afghanistan, there is a third way. (...) Only the Afghan people can decide their own destiny.Fundamentalism cannot be destroyed by imperialist intervention. It canonly be destroyed by a popular struggle by Pakistani and Afghani people. (...) [Source: 10.10.2001; www.workersworld.org] 

Labour Party Pakistan National Committee

resolutions on present situation

LPP national committee met at Hyderabad (Sind) for two days on27-28th October 2001. 23 members of NC and 6 observers discussed the present political and economical situation of Pakistan and analyzed the effects of the imperialist war on Afghanistan on the consciousnessof the working class and its organizations. It also discussed in detailthe question of religious fundamentalism, its nature, possible scenarioof future and the danger of its growth in Pakistan and internationally.

The NC also formulize LPP position on the present situation and decided to challenge the danger of religious fundamentalism bymobilizing the working masses into a peace movement linked with theclass struggle. It decided to organize broad base peace movementacross the country along with trade unions, peasants, civil societyorganizations, left groups and individuals.

There will a peace rally at Hyderababd on 4th November, On 6th atIslamabad with civil society organizations, 11th at Karachi. LPP alsodecided to organize an LPP national peace rally on 29th November atLahore. (...)

Political ResolutionsWe are passing through a crucial juncture of Pakistan history. LPP

has and will oppose the American imperialist war on the poorestcountries of the world. The war is no solution and it is a terrorist actagainst another terrorist act of those responsible for 11th September events.

The American imperialism have killed innocent Afghanis and haveforced thousands to flee from their houses in most disgustingconditions.

There is no justification of this war on Afghanistan. The real purpose of this war is to strengthen its hegemony on the world, tocontrol the markets of central Asia, to heal its wounded and disgraced ego by the 11th September event and to promote the war industry onceagain on an unprecedented level.

Imperialist war on Afghanistan with the full and active support of the military regime of Pakistan has promoted the religiousfundamentalists forces on an unprecedented level. This has endangered the existence of the Left forces inside Afghanistan and Pakistan. The

 

87update 7

result will be more attacks on minorities, Left forces, civil societyorganizations and trade unions by the religious fanatics. (...)

While opposing the imperialist war on Afghanistan, we will not lend a single inch support for the fascist Talibaan regime. We will supportthe progressive and left forces of Afghanistan. It did not matter if theyare very small and have no real say at present time. (...)

There will be no peace in Afghanistan even if the Talbaan aredefeated decisively. The American efforts in Afghanistan to bring the Northern Alliance will polarize the Afghan situation more than before.The religious forces are dominating the Northern Alliance. But oncevictorious, they will no go against the US imperialism in theimmediate period. They will be more like Mujahidin supporting theAmericans in the eighties. But they will go in contradictions with theUS within a short period. We do not support the return of King Zanier Shah as an alternative government. The Zahir Shah return to power will be another set back for the Afghan masses, as this governmentwill be stooge government of Imperialism more than the NorthernAlliance.

LPP demands an immediate end of imperialist war on Afghanistan.Because of these attacks, the fascist Talbaan government has gained inthe short period, the sympathies of the majority of ordinary Muslimsin Pakistan. The only way-out for Afghan masses is to get rid of Talbaan in a revolutionary insurrection to lay down the basis for ademocratic socialist takes over. The Left groups in Afghanistan must be supported and promoted by all the international Socialist movementas an alternate to the American imposed solution. (...) [Source: www.labourpakistan.org] 

[It should be mentioned here that we cannot publish here the full text of the above two documents due to its volume. However, the excerpts havebeen selected in such a manner that the poitical content of the documentscan be more or less understood. – Update ]

2. Egypt, Jordon & Oman:

(...) In Egypt, more than 20,000 students from nine universities inCairo and the north protested the air strikes, and condemned thegovernment's support for the US attack. President Hosni Mubarak has been America's most stalwart ally amongst the Arab countries, but hasnot issued a statement since the bombing began. Security forces stood guard outside the campuses as 4,000 students protested at the IslamicUniversity of Al-Azhar, 3,000 at the Alexandria University and afurther 2,500 at Zagazig University to the north.

In Jordan, security forces carried out a major clampdown against potential protestors as soon as the US raids began, arresting at least10 Islamic students from the University of Jordan.

 

update 788

In the Sultanate of Oman, where British forces are engaged in amajor military exercise, police broke up a small anti-war protest,mainly involving students. (...) [Source: www.wsws.org] 

3. Turkey:

(...) According to a report from the Party of Labor (EMEP) inTurkey, demonstrators took to the streets in the cities of Istanbul and Adana on Oct. 14 to protest U.S. aggressive attacks on Afghanistanand the collaboration of the Ecevit government.

The day before, demonstrations were held in Izmir and Ankara.The leading forces in these demonstrations were the EMEP, the

Freedom and Solidarity Party (ODP) and the Socialist Power Party(SIP). Trade unionists from unions affiliated to the Confederation of Public Sector Unions also participated.

All four demonstrations were first called for Oct. 14. But when thegovernment banned the actions, two were rescheduled. All four  protested both the banning of the rallies and the war.

While the demonstration in Adana ended peacefully, police brutallyattacked the 1,500 people on the Istanbul demonstration and took 44into custody. Others were beaten or bitten by police dogs.

The most popular slogans on the march were "No to war," "Downwith U.S. imperialism," "Budget for education, not for war," "No towar – work, bread, equality and freedom" and "No to poverty and hunger."

In a talk that was ending as the police attacked, EMEP PresidentLevent Tüzel noted that "outside of a handful of collaborators and  people in capitalist circles, the people of Turkey do not regard theU.S. as a friend or ally. And the people who have sent their sons toKorea and Kosovo yesterday are against troops being sent toAfghanistan today." The EMEP leader added, referring to Turkey'sgrave economic crisis, "the government that has dragged the countryand the people into such a decline should immediately resign its duties,without opening the door to new disasters."

Both the EMEP and SIP party leaders said that neither the policeattacks nor threats would intimidate their parties, and that they would continue to protest U.S. aggression and Ecevit's collaboration. [Source: www.workersworld.org] 

4. Israel :

In the past weeks, three demonstrations against the imperialist war took place: in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa.

On the 24 October around 50 peace and anti-war activistsdemonstrated in front of the defense ministry in Tel-Aviv (HaQirya,

 

89update 7

the Israeli defense headquarters). On the demo participated theCommunist Party, the Peace Block, the Israeli Communist Forum, theSocialist Workers League, the LRCI and others.

The Israeli Zionist "left" refused to participate in the demo. Theonly parliament member was the chairman of the Democratic Front for Peace and Equality (DFPE) and the member of the political bureau of the Communist Party, Muhammad Barke.

The Israeli anti-occupation movement today faces a doublechallenge: resistance to the murderous occupation of Palestine by Israeland opposition to the imperialist war against Afghanistan. This is avery difficult challenge.

 Naturally many people see, as does George Bush, that the two issuesare intertwined. The intifada and the repression of the Palestinians for decades have nurtured the grievances of many Arab and Islamist anti-imperialists, as well as those who destroyed the World Trade Centre.

Likewise many in the West Bank and Gaza support Bin Laden, if not before, or even when his followers carried out the 11 September atrocities, then now when he and Afghanistan are under attack by thesame White House that has been a constant source of support and hardware for the Zionists in Israel.

But for the left inside Israel the matter is not so clear cut. (...) [Source: Workers Power Global,  27.10.2001;www.workerspower.com] 

What our leaders and pundits never let slip is that the terrorists – whatever else they might be – might also be rational human beings; which is to saythat in their own minds they have a rational justification for their actions.Most terrorists are people deeply concerned by what they see as social,

political, or religious injustice and hypocrisy, and the immediate grounds for their terrorism is often retaliation for an action of the United States...

The shooting down of two Libyan planes in 1981;the bombardment of Beirut in 1983 and 1984;

the bombing of Libya in 1986;the bombing and sinking of an Iranian ship in 1987;

the shooting down of an Iranian passenger plane in 1988;the shooting down of two more Libyan planes in 1989;

the massive bombing of the Iraqi people in 1991;the continuing bombings and sanctions against Iraq;

the bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998;the habitual support of Israel despite its cruel destructiveness and routine

torture, and condemnation of Arab resistance to this;the double standard applied to Israeli terrorism, such as the wilful massacre

of 106 Lebanese at the UN base at Qana in 1996;the continued persecution of Libya, now nearing the end of its seconddecade; the abduction of wanted men from Muslim countries, such asMalaysia, Pakistan, Lebanon and Albania; the large military and hi-tech

presence in Islam's holiest land, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere in the PersianGulf region...

These are some of the American actions that can turn an Arab or a Musliminto a fanatic, into a terrorist, into a decrier of "America, the Great Satan".

 – Rogue State : A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum