The empire isn't in Afghanistan for the oil!

By Jared Israel, The Emperor's Clothes, 22 June 2002

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.
-- 'Casablanca'

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)

- For full text of Fidel Castro's remarks, see http://www.embacuba.ca/Doc-e.htm#Nov2

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 itas a commercially viable projectbecause 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.

At first the list of countries the US promised to bomb for (harboring terrorists) was limited to Iraq, Iran, Cuba, Libya, North Korea and Sudan. As we noted in our article, there was no evidence that any of these countries had ties with Osama bin Laden. In fact, the opposite was true:

... the countries which collaborated to create the Taliban, training and financing the forces of Osama bin Laden, and which have never stopped pouring money into the Taliban - namely Pakistan...Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and the United States itself - have not been placed on the 'we've got to get them' list. Instead these states are touted as core allies in the New World War against terrorism. - Why Washington Wants Afghanistan at http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/afghan.htm

We quoted Donald Rumsfeld who, on September 16th, upped the number of countries threatened with US attack to 60:

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the US would engage in a 'multi-headed effort' to target terrorist organizations and up to 60 countries believed to be supporting them.

The US, Mr. Rumsfeld told American TV, 'had no choice' other than to pursue terrorists and countries giving them refuge. - BBC News, September 16th http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-waterloo-stories/2001-Septembe r/000215.html

We made the following argument:

[START EXCERPT FROM 'WHY WASHINGTON WANTS AFGHANISTAN']

The threats to bomb up to a third of the world's countries has scared many people, worldwide. This, we think, is the intention. It serves two functions.
First, it means that if Washington limits its aggressive action mainly to attacking Afghanistan, the world will breathe a sigh of relief.
And we think Washington will mainly attack Afghanistan - at first. Other immediate violations of sovereignty, such as the forced use of Pakistan, will be backup action to support the attack on Afghanistan. There may also be some state terror, such as increased, unprovoked bombing of Iraq, as a diversion. But the main immediate focus will, we think, be Afghanistan.
Second, this scare tactic [of threatening to bomb everyone] is meant to divert attention from Washington's real strategy, far more dangerous than the threat to bomb many states. Washington wants to take over Afghanistan in order to speed up the fulfillment of its strategy of pulverizing the former Soviet Republics in the same way Washington has been pulverizing the former Yugoslavia. This poses the gravest risks [of nuclear war] to mankind. (4)

[END EXCERPT FROM 'WHY WASHINGTON WANTS AFGHANISTAN' at http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/afghan.htm

We argued that Washington would strive to bring together elements of all the various Islamic fundamentalist sects in Afghanistan into a united force under its control. Washington did not wish to destroy the Taliban. Rather, it wished to take Afghanistan into receivership, so to speak, because the Taliban was incompetent and unreliable, and the Empire needed to move NATO forces directly into the area to speed up the encirclement of Russia:

It is our conviction, and that of many observers from the region in question, that Washington ordered Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to fund the Taliban so the Taliban could do a job: consolidate control over Afghanistan and from there move to destabilize the former Soviet Central Asian Republics on its borders. But the Taliban has failed. It has not defeated the Russian-backed Northern Alliance. Instead of subverting Central Asia in businesslike fashion, it has indulged in blowing up statues of Buddha and terrorizing people who deviate from the Taliban's super-repressive interpretation of Islam. 'Why Washington Wants Afghanistan.' (4)

The inefficiency of the Taliban was one of the reasons Washington moved into Afghanistan. The other reason was that Russia was taking independent steps which could challenge Washington's hegemonic rule:

...China and Russia have signed a mutual defense pact. (5) And despite immense European/U.S. pressure, Russian President Putin refused to condemn Belarussian President Lukashenko who, like the jailed but unbroken Yugoslav President Milosevic, calls for standing up to NATO. (6) It is this unfavorable series of developments that has caused Washington to increase its reliance on its all-time favorite tactic: extreme brinkmanship. (4)

Since the invasion of Afghanistan, the encirclement of Russia has greatly intensified. For example, NATO has developed much closer military ties with the Central Asian Republics. There are now US 'advisers' in Georgia, a former Soviet Republic on Russia's strategic southern flank, whose government is hostile to Russia. Russian leader Vladimir Gorbachev - oh, I am so sorry, I meant Vladimir *Putin*! - has used the excuse of a supposed united fight against terror to isolate Russian patriots and make major concessions to Washington.

As an added Imperial benefit, the supposed war on terrorism has confused some patriots in Russia and elsewhere in another way.

Seeing that the U.S. *says* it wants to fight the Islamic terrorists, and having failed to organize ordinary people to defend and reclaim the social gains of the Soviet period, they toy with the solution of allying with Islamic fundamentalist and authoritarian Muslim states under the illusion that in this way they can build a real coalition against the New World Empire. In fact, the Islamic fundamentalist and authoritarian forces are the deadly enemies of ordinary people, pushing the most backward ideas (such as the most brutal oppression of women, violent hatred of Jews, religious tyranny, glorification of terrorism, and so on) and the most authoritarian conditions of political life. It is far better not to have allies than it is to have allies like these.

In fact, the only solid basis on which to build if one would oppose the New World Empire is: the political understanding of ordinary people. Perhaps the most important people in the world - because of where they live - are the peoples of the former Soviet Union.

In October we published an article which discussed the danger that those who want to resist the Empire would adopt the superficial political strategy of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. That they would support the Islamic fundamentalists (e.g., Islamic Jihad, Hammas, etc.) and the equally dangerous authoritarian Muslim regimes and movements (e.g., Saddam Hussein, Arafat) because, superficially, the Empire *seems* to oppose them. That article is called 'Osama bin Laden, Terrorist Monster: Take Two!' at http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/taketwo-a.htm

Now we see, unfortunatly, that some in the former Socialist countries, who should know better, and others in the Western peace movement are making this mistake. We will discuss this more in other articles.

And as for the Taliban, despite the ruthless bombing of Afghanistan, which killed so many civilians, despite the pictures released by the US military of prisoners in Guantanamo, intended to show how *ruthlessly* they were suppressing the Taliban, in fact what has happened? On October 19th we wrote:

We have been sold a vicious little war, my friends. The terrorists will not be eliminated. They will be regrouped into a more effective force. The talk of keeping 'moderate Taliban' in the government is the tip-off. A 'moderate Taliban' is one who does what the U.S. tells him to do. Washington plans to combine some of these moderates with moderate muhajedeen (i.e., terrorists) from the Northern Alliance, with the aim of creating a unified moderate terrorist apparatus modeled after the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). (12)

So we predicted that much of the Taliban would be absorbed into the armies of the new Afghan puppet state. And look what was reported as early as January of this year:

THOUSANDS of former Taliban soldiers are being recruited into a new Afghan army, where they are being armed with Russian AK47 rifles and dressed in uniforms provided by the United States. Some soldiers in Mullah Mohammed Omar's former stronghold estimate that as many as 6,000 Taleban will soon be part of Kandaharms new army.

- This was originally published by the (London) Times at http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,3-2002027355,00.html But you can more easily access the article at http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020118/world.htm#3

The U.S. claim that it is fighting Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan is a farce, as demonstrated by the policy of continuing to ship Islamic fundamentalist textbooks into that tortured country. See http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/jihad.htm

How well this new puppet state, based on an army combining all the gruesome factions of Islamic fundamentalists which Washington and Saudi Arabia have created in Afghanistan and Pakistan since 1979, an army which is more like an archeological dig, with its various layers representing the various nightmares schemes of the boys in Langley, Virginia, how well this living expression of the agony which Bryzinsky's slick schemers have inflicted on the people of Afghanistan, how well this puppet state and army will ever function remains to be seen.

We read in the Washington Post of a week ago that the CIA has been trying to assassinate Gulbuddin Hekmatyar:

In the U.S. view, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar is a villain who deserves a violent death, although he is different from the al-Qaida and Taliban leaders previously targeted by the military and CIA in Afghanistan.
The CIA took a shot at Hekmatyar with a missile from one of its unmanned Predator drones on Monday near Kabul, but missed, defense officials said. The missile killed some of his followers.
U.S. officials accuse Hekmatyar of plotting attacks on American troops, offering rewards for their deaths and trying to destabilize the U.S.-backed interim government of Hamid Karzai. At the same time, officials acknowledge that Hekmatyar, who once served as Afghanistan's prime minister, has limited ties to the Taliban and is only suspected of working with al-Qaida. But they say his anti-U.S. activities make him a more immediate threat than the other feuding warlords.
'I can assure you when we go after individuals in the theater of war, it is because they intend to do some harm to America,' President Bush said Thursday when asked about the strike.
- Associated Press Online * May 10, 2002 Friday WASHINGTON DATELINE * CIA Fails to Kill Afghan Warlord By JOHN J. LUMPKIN

Go after individuals in the theater of war. What a nice, Bush-folksy way of saying trying to murder people.

To understand the horrible irony of this, you should know that Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was the fanatic into whose pockets the CIA pumped much of its billions of dollars of Afghan blood money, and who was installed as a Prime Minister after the overthrow of the Afghan secular government. For more on this go to http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/camps.htm#1

Some news reports said that the recent unpleasantness had occured because Mr. Hekmatyar was trying to murder Americans.

Perhaps he was. Or perhaps he wasn't.

Perhaps Hekmatyar heard that the CIA was trying to murder him and in proper gangster fashion, he tried to kill them first.

Or maybe he and the CIA boys were trying to murder each other.

Maybe 'Murder' is the proper word to describe what Washington has visited upon Afghanistan.

Maybe it was Murder Incorporated that set up shop in Afghanistan in1979 when the idiot-monsters at CIA in Langley, Virginia began trying to draw Russia into the Afghan trap, in the process of which they turned an ancient land of wonderful people into living hell.

And maybe by the time Washington finishes this latest phase of its 23 year old murderous we're-in-it-to-destroy-Russia Afghan nightmare, maybe by the time it's all over, the New World Empire will earnestly wish that in fact it had gone to Afghanistan only for the oil.

The empire isn't in Afghanistan for the oil!

By Jared Israel, The Emperor's Clothes, 22 June 2002

Further Reading on US/NATO Encirclement of Russia