It's Not the Oil, But Power for Power's Sake

Via NY Transfer News * All the News That Doesn't Fit

Fidel was right, says Emperor's Clothes... 
"It's NOT the oil, Stupid, it's the power"

source - Emperor's Clothes
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/oil-1.htm

THE EMPIRE ISN'T IN AFGHANISTAN FOR THE OIL!

By Jared Israel


  FIRST, A SCENE FROM THE MOVIE "CASABLANCA:" 

  Louie [Claude Raines]: "And what in heaven's name brought
  you to Casablanca?"

  Rick [Humphrey Bogart]: "My health. I came to Casablanca
  for the waters."

  Louie: "The waters? What waters? We're in the desert!"

  Rick: "I was misinformed." 

                       *

We recently published an article entitled, "U.S. Won't "Abandon"
Central Asia ...Central Asians, Be Warned!" (1)
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/bbc1219.htm

The article dealt with the Senate testimony last December by US
Undersecretary of State for Eurasian Affairs, Elizabeth Jones.

In her testimony, Ms. Jones mentioned Caspian Sea energy resources as
one of the areas of interest to the US government regarding Central
Asia.

I commented that this might seem to confirm the idea, held by many
opponents of what one might call the New World Empire, that the
"cause" of the Anglo-US-German assault on Afghanistan, that "the
cause was oil."

I said in passing that I believed the "they're-doing-it-for-oil"
explanation was wrong. A reader wrote the following:

"Dear Emperor's Clothes:

"I respect your work, especially your high standards and due
diligence. Sometimes when I read your articles lights go on. .
However I also respect some of the folks who are arguing that oil
explains US actions in Afghanistan. You seem to disagree. Could you
explain why, providing the documentation to which I have become
accustomed?

"Best regards,

 Phil R., High School Teacher, greater New York 

Fair enough. 

Since posting my commentary on the report of what Elizabeth Jones
said about Central Asia, we received, also from a NY-area reader, the
actual transcript of her remarks. Thus you can now read the full
transcript at http://emperors-clothes.com/news/alljones.htm

Here are two excerpts from the accurate summary, which was broadcast
by the Interfax-Kazakhstan news agency.

Excerpt 1:

"The USA must step up 'constant support for democratic political
institutions, local NGOs and the independent media' in all five
countries.

"At the same time, Jones stressed that the USA would render
assistance to the Central Asian states only 'providing that the
latter take specific steps towards reforms.'

"The USA believes, Jones said, that 'certain countries' in the region
should noticeably step up their economic reforms and democratic
processes, the observance of human rights and the formation of a
strong civil society.'"

Excerpt 2:

"...assistance was conditional on economic and democratic reforms and
the observance of human rights. Jones outlined US priorities in the
region: combating terrorism; reform; the rule of law; Caspian Sea
energy resources."

Having posted the quotes from Ms. Jones, I noted that people who
oppose the war against Afghanistan might see the familiar phrase,
"Caspian Sea energy resources," and think, "Aha! This proves it!"

The 'it' in question is the widespread theory that "the reason for US
policy in Afghanistan [and elsewhere] is oil."

The 'they-do-it-for-oil' theory relies on two assumed facts:

1) We are told that the US is running out of oil and therefore the US
establishment is desperate to control the area around the oil-rich
Caspian Sea; and -

2) Negotiations between the Unocal oil company and the Taliban rulers
of Afghanistan to build an oil pipeline in the area were supposedly
going on before September 11th. The Taliban was negotiating in bad
faith or simply refused to allow a pipeline and the US government,
beholden to greedy administration members connected with Unocal, and
also worried about running out of oil, went to war to get Unocal its
pipeline.

There are several problems with this theory.

First, there is no evidence the US had to go to war to guarantee an
adequate oil supply. Fidel Castro spoke about this. Some of our
readers may admire Mr. Castro and some may not but surely all will
concede he is a shrewd observer. Commenting on the theory that oil
was "behind" the war in Afghanistan, Mr. Castro said:

"I do not share the view that the United States' main pursuit in
Afghanistan was oil. I rather see it as part of a geo-strategic
concept. No one would make such a mistake simply to go after oil,
least of all a country with access to any oil in the world, including
all the Russian oil and gas it wishes. It would be sufficient for the
U.S. to invest, to buy and to pay." (2)

[The full text of Fidel Castro's November 2 speech, in english and
spanish, is available in NY Transfer's Caribbean news archive for
Oct-Dec, 2001-- NY Transfer.]

Mr. Castro is right. Before 9-11 the US was in a powerful position as
regards Caspian basin energy resources - indeed, according to an
earlier report from Secretary Jones, the main concern of the U.S. was
not getting oil but using oil-development projects to orient local
States in a way that favored US geopolitical interests.

Below is an excerpt from a report of some interesting statements made
by Elizabeth Jones on April 11, 2001 at Harvard. She was talking
about a proposed pipeline through the Caspian area (not Afghanistan)
and its relation to the core U.S. strategy of promoting Turkey as a
regional Imperial proxy force, strengthening its relations with
Georgia, which has a pro-U.S. government, and Azerbaijan, with the
goal of weakening Russian influence:

"...The Ambassador remarked on a change in the way the new
Administration talks about the oil pipeline that will run from Baku,
Azerbaijan through Tbilisi, Georgia, to the Turkish port of Ceyhan.
Jones made it clear that while the pipeline *itself* is not an
American strategic interest, the U.S. Government promoted and
continues to promote it -- as a commercially viable project -- because it
is seen as one of several ways to implement these U.S. strategic
goals. 'The BTC pipeline *is*,' she continued, 'a strategic interest
of Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey.'"

"... In the early nineteen nineties, when newly independent
Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan began to increase oil production and
exports, the existing pipeline system led through Russia. Moscow used
the pipelines as political leverage, 'turning off the spigots' when
the Caspian states acted in ways that were seen as threatening
Russia's interests (such as joining NATO's Partnership for Peace). To
guard against dependence on Russia and also prevent dependence on
Iran, which would have an interest in controlling Caspian oil because
it is a competitor in the oil market, the U.S. supported a policy of
multiple pipelines..." [Emphasis as in original. To read entire text
go to http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/BCSIA/Library.nsf/pubs/AmbJones ]

In other words, rather than being interested in Central Asia "because
of oil," the U.S. was interested in oil "because of Central Asia."

This follows an age-old truth: the poor seek security. The rich seek
more money. But the real rulers seek power, because power gets them
control of *everything* that human beings seek.

Second, the theory that the U.S. went to war because the Taliban were
being intransigent regarding an oil pipeline falsely assumes the
Taliban were the independent rulers of Afghanistan.

Actually the Taliban were under active control of the Pakistani army
and secret police, and were funded by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, both
of which, especially Saudi Arabia, are part of the U.S. Empire.
Indeed there is substantial evidence that the US covert apparatus
supported the Taliban for a long time. For more on this, see
"Congressman: U.S. Set Up Anti-Taliban to be Slaughtered'" at
http://emperors-clothes.com/misc/rohr.htm

So if the Taliban were being difficult in some important oil pipeline
negotiations, why wouldn't the U.S. government simply put pressure on
them to 'get with the program'? Why bomb the place to smithereens?

And what is the hard evidence that the Taliban did *not* want a
pipeline?

That evidence better be pretty good because it does not make sense
for the Taliban to have opposed a pipeline. Pipelines bring in lots
of cash. A pipeline would have decreased the Taliban's financial
dependence on Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the U.S. The Taliban were
extremists but they weren't fools.

Moreover, we have strong evidence the Taliban did *not* resist
building a pipeline. Quite the contrary.

According to the Petroleum Economist of February 11, 2002, it was the
Taliban which tried to get a trans-Afghan pipeline, and it was the
U.S. and Unocal which jinxed the project.

This can be found in an analytical article in the Petroleum
Economist, entitled, "ANALYSIS; PIPELINE SURVEY; RUSSIA GOES TO
MARKET." Note that the Economist is the most sophisticated journal of
the oil industry. It is not read by the general public. It has zero
interest in molding public opinion. Its purpose is to provide
insiders with accurate information. Here's the Petroleum Economist:

"The Taliban promoted Afghanistan as an oil and gas transit point for
exports from the Caspian to the Mideast Gulf. In 1997, Turkmenistan
brokered the creation of an international consortium, CentGas, under
the leadership of Unocal, which planned to build a $2bn gas line
across Afghanistan. The imposition of US and, later, UN sanctions
against the country and then Unocal's withdrawal put a stop to the
plan.  The project envisaged a 1,270-km, 20bn cubic metres a year
link from the border with Turkmenistan, along the Herat-Kandahar
road, to the Pakistan border, at Quetta, ending at Mulat." (3)

Proponents of the theory that the U.S. attacked Afghanistan "because
of the Afghan oil pipeline" must explain why the US establishment
first took the action which made it *impossible* to build a pipeline
and then attacked Afghanistan to make it *possible* to build a
pipeline.

Having killed the pipeline project, if the United States
establishment subsequently changed its mind and decided it wanted a
pipeline built after all, and if Unocal changed its mind and decided
now that it wanted to build the pipeline, why wouldn't the US simply
remove the sanctions which were what was preventing investors from
putting up the cash to build the pipeline?

Pipelines are vulnerable to attack, so going to war is the worst
thing for building a pipeline. Nobody will invest money in building a
pipeline in a country that is engulfed in war. But wars are tricky
business. Once you start a war, especially in an area like Central
Asia, it is difficult to say for sure when it will end. Afghanistan
is a maze of difficult terrains, literally and figuratively.

Thus the Petroleum Economist notes, in its dry way, that the war is
not helping the pipeline project one bit:

"But the reservations of the international investment community, wary
of becoming involved in a still-volatile area, suggest enthusiasm
about pipeline projects in the country may be premature." [Petroleum
Economist, see footnote (3) ]

Ahh, premature. 

Moreover, this war has, predictably, destabilized a highly volatile
region jam-packed with nuclear weapons. The threat of nuclear war has
been increased. The U.S. would only risk nuclear war for the biggest
stakes - certainly not to build a pipeline, which it could have built
with no problem if instead of going to war it had lifted the
sanctions against Afghanistan.

The "they-are-in-Afghanistan-for-the-oil" theory has another problem.

The test of theory is its usefulness in predicting events.

But those who now put forward the "they are in it for the oil" theory
did not predict the attack on Afghanistan.

Rather, believing that "the US is motivated by oil," they predicted
that, following the terrible events of 9-11, the US would launch
military action in the Middle East, most likely against Iraq.

I am not saying the US and Britain will not - once again- escalate
their pitiless war against Iraq, a war of bombs and sanctions which
has killed so many Iraqis and had the secondary but also quite
harmful collateral effect of increasing world-wide political respect
for the increasingly distorted leaders in Iraq.

No, I am not saying the U.S. and England will definitely not escalate
the war against Iraq. But please consider that, despite the
predictions made by analysts who hold the "they're-in-it-for-the-oil"
theory, who have been saying ever since 9-11 that an all out attack
on Iraq is imminent, please note that in the eight months since 9-11
escalation against Iraq has not yet occured. This of course suggests
that the threat of a massive attack on Iraq is a diversion to shift
our gaze away from the central point of New World Empire interest:
Central Asia.

I do not wish to be unkind but really, what is left of the
"they-did-it-for-the-oil" theory?

It is apparently based on wrong information, asserting that the
Taliban was the obstacle to an Afghan pipeline, when common sense and
facts from a reliable source tell us the Taliban wanted the pipeline.

It fails to consider that war is the worst thing for pipelines.

Those who put forth this theory failed, every one of them, to predict
the invasion of Afghanistan, arguing instead that
"because-they're-in-it-for-the- oil," the U.S. government would
invade the Middle East, specifically Iraq.

(Though if the U.S. government really "wants oil" why not make a
mutually beneficial settlement with the Iraqi government? The Iraqi
leaders would come to terms with the new World Empire in two seconds
flat, given the chance. They have exactly zero interest in fighting
the US Empire. It is clearly the US which picked the fight.)

On September 18th, Emperor's Clothes published an article we had
started working on right after 9-11. In it we made some predictions
based on our own hypothesis.

We said the central (that is, dominant) goal of the New World Empire
was to fully encircle Russia with Imperial proxy states and gradually
- including the use of phony rebellions and military attrition -
reduce Russia and certain other former Soviet states to shattered,
totally impoverished territories under Imperial domination. That is
not an arbitrary goal, born of malice. Those who run the New World
Empire (centered in the U.S. establishment) are fully aware that
Russia and China are the most likely potential counter weight to
their power. Therefore for over a decade they have been patiently
laying a noose around Russia's neck. As the gangster said in the
movie, 'The Godfather," nothing personal. It's only business.

Our article was entitled, "Why Washington Wants Afghanistan." It is
at http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/afghan.htm

Note that this article was published *before* the US attacked
Afghanistan. It is hard to remember, but at first it wasn't at all
clear that the US planned to attack Afghanistan, or only Afghanistan.

Note that at that time, columnists and politicians were threatening
that the US would launch all-out war against many countries. (4)

Note that the proponents of the "they're-in-it-for-the-oil" theory
were all saying the US had gone insane and was about to attack
everyone under the sun, particularly Iraq.

When we wrote that in fact the U.S. was going to concentrate on
Afghanistan, a lot of people, particularly on the "left," said we
were hallucinating. Afghanistan, they said. What did the US want with
Afghanistan?

Note that we were 100% correct.
 
** CONTINUED IN PART 2 **

BELOW are Footnotes & Further Reading to this point, and a fund-raising appeal...

FOOTNOTES AND FURTHER READING

For map of Central Asia, see http://www.sitara.com/central_asia_map.html 
[See also NY Transfer's Bush Crusade War Maps from our homepage]


1) US WON'T 'ABANDON' CENTRAL ASIA ...CENTRAL ASIANS, BE WARNED!" 
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/bbc1219.htm 

2) For full text of Fidel Castro's remarks (in english and spanish),
see "Fidel Castro on the Current International Situation - Nov 2,
2001" in NY Transfer's Caribbean News archive for Oct-Dec, 2001.

(3) Petroleum Economist, February 11, 2002, Pg.12 "ANALYSIS; PIPELINE
SURVEY; RUSSIA GOES TO MARKET" * "After the Taliban,"
http://emperors-clothes.com/archive/pipe-tal.htm

4) 'Why Washington Wants Afghanistan,' by Jared Israel, Rick Rozoff &
Nico Varkevisser, analyzes the geo-political designs behind the
massive deception called The War On Terror"
http://www.tenc.net/analysis/afghan.htm

 
=================================================================
  NY Transfer News Collective   *   A Service of Blythe Systems 
           Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us          
              339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012             
  http://www.blythe.org                  e-mail: nyt@blythe.org 
=================================================================
 
nytact-06.25.02-15:58:36-13010