America's War Machine

Chapter 7

The 1999 war in Yugoslavia-which coincided with the formation of GUUAM and NATO enlargement into Eastern Europe-marked an important turnaround in East-West relations.

Aleksander Arbatov, Deputy Chairman of the Defense Committee of the Russian State Duma US-Russian Relations, described the war in Yugoslavia as the "worst, most acute, most dangerous juncture since the US-Soviet Berlin and Cuban missile crises".(1) According to Arbatov:

START II is dead, co-operation with NATO is frozen, co-operation on missile defense is out of the question, and Moscow's willingness to cooperate on non-proliferation issues is at an all-time low. Moreover, anti-US sentiment in Russia is real, deep and more widespread than ever, and the slogan describing NATO action-"today Serbia, tomorrow Russia," is deeply planted in Russians'minds.(2)

Despite President Boris Yeltsin's conciliatory statements at the 1999 G-8 Summit in Cologne, Russia's military establishment had openly expressed its distrust of the US: "The bombing of Yugoslavia could turn out in the very near future to be just a rehearsal for similar strikes on Russia."(3)

Mary-Wynne Ashford, co-President of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), warned that, whereas Russia was moving towards integration with Europe, they (the Russians) now:

...perceive their primary threat [to be] from the West. Officials in [Russia's] Foreign Affairs (Arms Control and Disarmament) told us [the IPPNW] that Russia has no option but to rely on nuclear weapons for its defense, because its conventional forces are inadequate.... [T]he changes in Russia's attitude toward the West, its renewed reliance on nuclear weapons with thousands on high alert and its loss of confidence in international law leave us vulnerable to catastrophe.... This crisis makes de-alerting nuclear weapons more urgent than ever. To those who say the Russian threat is all rhetoric, I reply that rhetoric is what starts wars.(4)
Post 1999 Military Buildup

Meanwhile, in Washington, a major build-up of America's military arsenal was in the making. The underlying objective was to achieve a position of global military hegemony. Defense spending in 2002 was hiked up to more than $300 billion, an amount equivalent to the entire Gross Domestic Product of the Russian Federation (approximately $325 billion). An even greater increase in US military spending was set in motion in the wake of the October 2001 bombing of Afghanistan:

More than one-third of the $68 billion allocated for new weapons in the 2003 budget is for Cold War-type weapons. Several billion dollars are allocated for cluster bomb systems that have been condemned by human rights groups around the world. There is no rationale for this level of military spending other than a clear intent for the United States to be the New World Empire, dominating the globe economically and militarily, including the militarization of space.(5)

In the largest military buildup since the Vietnam War, the Bush administration plans to increase military spending by $120 billion over a five-year period, "bringing the 2007 military budget to an astounding $451 billion".(6)

This colossal amount of money allocated to America's war machine does not include the enormous budget of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) allocated from both "official" and undisclosed sources to finance its covert operations. The official budget of the CIA is in excess of $30 billion (10 per cent of Russia's GDP). This amount excludes the multi-billion dollar earnings from narcotics accruing to CIA shell companies and front organizations.(7)

From the overall defense budget, billions of dollars have been allocated to "refurbishing America's nuclear arsenal". A new generation of "cluster missiles"-with multiple nuclear warheads- has been developed, capable of delivering (from a single missile launch) up to 10 nuclear warheads directed at 10 different cities. These missiles are now targeted at Russia. In this context, Washington has clung to its "first strike" nuclear policy, which in principle is intended to deal with "rogue states" but, in fact, is largely directed against Russia and China.

Meanwhile, the US have also developed a new generation of "tactical nuclear weapons" or "mini-nukes" to be used in conventional war theatres. Already during the Clinton administration, the Pentagon was calling for the use of the "nuclear" B61-11 bunker buster bomb, suggesting that because it was "underground", there was no toxic radioactive fallout which could affect civilians:

Military officials and leaders of America's nuclear weapon laboratories are urging the US to develop a new generation of precision low-yield nuclear weapons....which could be used in conventional conflicts with Third World nations.(8)

America's War Economy

The military buildup initiated during the Clinton administration has gained a new momentum. September 11 and Bush's "war on terrorism" are used as an excuse for expanding America's military machine and fuelling the growth of the military-industrial complex.

A new "legitimacy" has unfolded. Increased military spending is said to be required "to uphold freedom" and defeat "the axis of evil":

It costs a lot to fight this war. We have spent more than a billion dollars a month-over $30 million a day-and we must be prepared for future operations. Afghanistan proved that expensive precision weapons defeat the enemy and spare innocent lives, and we need more of them. We need to replace aging aircraft and make our military more agile, to put our troops anywhere in the world quickly and safely.... My budget includes the largest increase in defense spending in two decades-because while the price of freedom and security is high, it is never too high. Whatever it costs to defend our country, we will pay.(9)

Since September 11, 2001, billions of dollars have been channeled towards developing new advanced weapons systems, including the F22 Raptor fighter plane and the Joint Fighter (JF) program.

The Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars") not only includes the controversial "Missile Shield", but also a wide range of "offensive" laser-guided weapons with striking capabilities anywhere in the world, not to mention instruments of weather and climatic warfare under the High Altitude Auroral Research Program (HAARP). The latter has the ability of destabilizing entire national economies through climatic manipulations, without the knowledge of the enemy, at minimal cost and without engaging military personnel and equipment as in a conventional war.(10)

Long-term planning pertaining to advanced weapons systems and the control of outer space is outlined in a US Space Command document released in 1998, entitled "Vision for 2020". The underlying objective consists in:

...dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investment... The emerging synergy of space superiority with land, sea and air superiority will lead to Full Spectrum Dominance.(11)

Nuclear Weapons in the Wake of September 11

In the wake of September 11, the "war on terrorism" is also being used by the Bush administration to redefine the assumptions underlying the use of nuclear weapons. The concept of "nuclear deterrence" has been scrapped. "They're trying desperately to find new uses for nuclear weapons, when their uses should be limited to deterrence."(12)

In early 2002, a secret Pentagon report confirmed the Bush administration's intent to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria. The secret report, leaked to the Los Angeles Times, states that nuclear weapons "could be used in three types of situations: against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack; in retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; or in the event of surprising military developments".(13)

-----

TEXT BOX 7.1

America's Tactical Nuclear Weapons

In the 2002 war in Afghanistan, the US Air Force was using GBU-28 "bunker buster bombs" capable of creating large scale underground explosions. The official story was that these bombs were intended to target "cave and tunnel complexes" in mountainous areas in southern Afghanistan, which were used as hideaways by Osama bin Laden. Dubbed by the Pentagon "the Big Ones", the GBUs (guided bomb units) are 5000-lb laser guided bombs with improved BLU-113 warheads capable of penetrating several metres of reinforced concrete. The BLU-113 is the most powerful conventional "earth penetrating warhead" ever created.

While the Pentagon's "Big Ones" are classified as "conventional weapons", the official statements fail to mention that the same "bunker buster bombs" launched from a B-52, a B-2 stealth bomber, or an F-16 aircraft can also be equipped with a nuclear device. The B61-11 is the "nuclear version" of its "conventional" BLU-113 counterpart.

The nuclear B61-11 is categorized as a "deep earth penetrating bomb" capable of "destroying the deepest and most hardened of underground bunkers, which the conventional warheads are not capable of doing." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has stated that while the 'conventional' bunker buster bombs "'are going to be able to do the job'.... He did not rule out the eventual use of nuclear weapons."(14)

The Bush administration needs a justification, as well as public support, for the use of tactical nuclear weapons as part of its "war against international terrorism". It is also anxious to test its "low yield" B61-11 bombs.

First, it is saying that these "low yield" nuclear weapons do not affect civilians, therefore justifying their being used in the same way as conventional weapons. Second, the Administration is hinting that the use of nuclear bunker busters may be justified as part of "the campaign against international terrorism", because Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network possesses nuclear capabilities and could use them against us. America's tactical nuclear weapons are said to be "safe" in comparison to those of Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda. Administration statements suggest, in this regard, that a "low-yield" earth penetrating tactical nuclear weapon such as the B61-11 would "limit collateral damage" and therefore be relatively safe to use.(15)

These new buzzwords are being spread by the US media to develop public support for the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Yet, the scientific evidence on this issue is unequivocal: the impacts on civilians of the "low yield" B61-11 would be devastating "because of the large amount of radioactive dirt thrown out in the explosion, the hypothetical 5-kiloton weapon … would produce a large area of lethal fallout".(16)

-----

With a Strangelovian genius, they cover every conceivable circumstance in which a president may wish to use nuclear weapons-planning in great detail for a war they hope never to wage. In this top-secret domain, there has always been an inconsistency between America's diplomatic objectives of reducing nuclear arsenals and preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction on the one hand, and the military imperative to prepare for the unthinkable on the other.

Nevertheless, the Bush administration plan reverses an almost two-decade-long trend of relegating nuclear weapons to the category of weapons of last resort. It also redefines nuclear requirements in hurried post-September 11 terms.(17)

While identifying a number of "rogue states", the not-so-hidden agenda of the Bush administration is to deploy and use nuclear weapons against Russia and China in the context of America's expansionary policy into Central Asia, the Middle East and the Far East:

The report says the Pentagon should be prepared to use nuclear weapons in an Arab-Israeli conflict, in a war between China and Taiwan or in an attack from North Korea on the south. They might also become necessary in an attack by Iraq on Israel or another neighbour, it said.

The report says Russia is no longer officially an "enemy". Yet it acknowledges that the huge Russian arsenal, which includes about 6,000 deployed warheads and perhaps 10,000 smaller "theatre" nuclear weapons, remains of concern.

Pentagon officials have said publicly that they were studying the need to develop theatre nuclear weapons, designed for use against specific targets on a battlefield, but had not committed themselves to that course.(18)

The thrust of this secret report, presented to the US Congress in early 2002, has been endorsed by the Republican Party:

[C]onservative analysts insisted that the Pentagon must prepare for all possible contingencies, especially now, when dozens of countries, and some terrorist groups, are engaged in secret weapon's development programs.... They argued that smaller weapons have an important deterrent role because many aggressors might not believe that the US forces would use multi-kiloton weapons that would wreak devastation on surrounding territory and friendly populations.

We need to have a credible deterrence against regimes involved in international terrorism and development of weapons of mass destruction," said Jack Spencer, a defense analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington. He said the contents of the report did not surprise him and represent "the right way to develop a nuclear posture for a post-Cold War world".(19)

Encircling China

In the wake of the 1999 war in Yugoslavia, the Clinton administration boosted its military support to Taiwan against China, leading to a significant military buildup in the Taiwan Straits. Taiwan's Air Force had been previously equipped with some 150 F16A fighter planes from Lockheed Martin. In this regard, the Clinton administration had argued that military aid to Taiwan was required to maintain "a military balance with the People's Republic of China" as part of Washington's policy of "peace through deterrence".(20)

US-built Aegis destroyers equipped with state-of-the-art surface-to-air missiles, ship-to-ship missiles, and Tomahawk cruise missiles were delivered to Taiwan to boost its naval capabilities in the Taiwan Straits.(21) Beijing responded to this military buildup by taking delivery in 2000, of its first Russian-built guided missile destroyer, the Hangzhou, equipped with SS-N-22 Sunburn anti-ship missiles,"capable of penetrating the state-of-the-art defenses of a US or Japanese naval battle group".(22)

Military assumptions have been radically changed since September 11. The Bush administration has scrapped the "peace through deterrence" doctrine. The post-September 11 military buildup in the Taiwan Straits is an integral part of Washington's overall military planning, which now consists in deploying "on several fronts".

Supported by the Bush administration, Taiwan has been "conducting active research aimed at developing a tactical ballistic missile capable of hitting targets in mainland China. … The alleged purpose of these missiles is to degrade the PLA's (People's Liberation Army) strike capability, including missile infrastructure and non-missile infrastructure (airfields, harbors, missile sites, etc.)."(23) In turn, US military presence in Pakistan and Afghanistan (and in several former Soviet republics), on China's western border, are being coordinated with Taiwan's naval deployment in the South China Sea.

China has been encircled: The US military is present in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Straits, in the Korean Peninsula and the Sea of Japan, as well as in the heartland of Central Asia and on the Western border of China's Xinjiang-Uigur autonomous region. "Temporary" US military bases have been set up in Uzbekistan (which is a member of the GUUAM agreement with NATO), in Tajikistan and in Kyrgyztan, where airfields and military airport facilities have been made available to the US Air Force.

Using Nuclear Weapons Against China

In early 2002, the Bush administration confirmed its intent to use nuclear weapons against China if there was a confrontation in the Taiwan Straits:

China, because of its nuclear forces and "developing strategic objectives", is listed as "a country that could be involved in an immediate or potential contingency". Specifically, the NPR lists a military confrontation over the status of Taiwan as one of the scenarios that could lead Washington to use nuclear weapons.(24)

The Anglo-American Axis

The 1999 war in Yugoslavia contributed to reinforcing strategic, military and intelligence ties between Washington and London. After the war in Yugoslavia, US Defense Secretary William Cohen and his British counterpart, Geoff Hoon, signed a "Declaration of Principles for Defense Equipment and Industrial Cooperation" so as to "improve cooperation in procuring arms and protecting technology secrets", while at the same time "easing the way for more joint military ventures and possible defense industry mergers".(25)

Washington's objective was to encourage the formation of a "trans-Atlantic bridge across which DoD [US Department of Defense] can take its globalization policy to Europe....Our aim is to improve interoperability and war fighting effectiveness via closer industrial linkages between US and allied companies."(26)

In the words of President Clinton's Defense Secretary William Cohen:

[The agreement] will facilitate interaction between our respective [British and American] industries so that we can have a harmonized approach to sharing technology, working cooperatively in partnership arrangements and, potentially, mergers as well.(27)

The agreement was signed in 1999 shortly after the creation of British Aerospace Systems (BAES) resulting from the merger of British Aerospace (BAe) with GEC Marconi. British Aerospace was already firmly allied to America's largest defense contractors Lockheed Martin and Boeing.(28)

The hidden agenda behind the Anglo-American "trans-Atlantic bridge" is to eventually displace the Franco-German military conglomerates and ensure the dominance of the US military industrial complex (in alliance with Britain's major defense contractors).

Moreover, this integration in the area of defense production has been matched by increased cooperation between the CIA and Britain's MI6 in the sphere of intelligence and covert operations, not to mention the joint operations of British and US Special Forces.

The United States and Germany

The British military-industrial complex has become increasingly integrated into that of the US. In turn, significant rifts have emerged between Washington and Berlin. Franco-German integration in aerospace and defense production is ultimately directed against US dominance in the weapons market. The latter hinges upon the partnership between America's Big Five and Britain's defense industry under the trans-Atlantic bridge agreement.

Since the early '90s, the Bonn government has encouraged the consolidation of Germany's military industrial complex dominated by Daimler, Siemens and Krupp. Several important mergers in Germany's defense industry took place in response to the mega-mergers between America's aerospace and weapons producers.(29)

By 1996 Paris and Bonn had already set up a joint armaments agency with the mandate "to manage common programs [and] award contracts on behalf of both governments".(30) Both countries had stated that they "did not want Britain to join the agency".

France and Germany also now control Airbus industries, which is competing against America's Lockheed-Martin. (Britain's BAES owns the remaining 20 per cent.) The Germans are also collaborating in the Ariane Space satellite-launching program in which Deutsche Aerospace (DASA) is a major shareholder.

In late 1999, in response to the "alliance" of British Aerospace with Lockheed Martin, France's Aerospatiale-Matra merged with Daimler's DASA, forming the largest European defense conglomerate. The following year the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co. (EADS) was formed, integrating DASA, Matra and Spain's Construcciones Aeronauticas, SA. EADS and its Anglo-American rivals are competing for the procurement of weapons to NATO's new Eastern European members. (Europe's third largest defense contractor is Thomson, which in recent years has several projects with US weapons producer Raytheon.)

While EADS still cooperates with Britain's BAES in missile production and has business ties with the US "Big Five", including Northrop Grumman, the Western defense and aerospace industry tends to be split into two distinct groups: EADS dominated by France and Germany on the one hand, the Anglo-US "Big Six", which includes the US Big Five contractors (Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing and Northrop Grumman) plus Britain's powerful BAES on the other.

Integrated into US Department of Defense procurement under the Atlantic bridge arrangement, BAES was the Pentagon's fifth largest defense contractor in 2001. Under the Anglo-American "transatlantic bridge", BAES operates freely in the US market through its subsidiary BAE Systems North America.(31)

Franco-German Integration in Nuclear Weapons

The Franco-German alliance in military production under EADS opens the door for the integration of Germany (which does not officially possess nuclear weapons) into France's nuclear weapons program. In this regard, EADS already produces a wide range of ballistic missiles, including the M51 nuclear-tipped ballistic submarine-launched ICBMs for the French Navy.(32) What this means is that Germany, through its alliance with France, is a de facto nuclear power.

Euro versus Dollar: Rivalry Between Competing Business Conglomerates

The European common currency system has a direct bearing on strategic and political divisions. London's decision not to adopt the common European currency is consistent with the integration of British financial and banking interests with those of Wall Street, as well as the Anglo-American alliance in the oil industry (as in BP-Amoco) and weapons production ("Big Five" plus BAES). In other words, this shaky relationship between the British pound and the US dollar is an integral part of the new Anglo-American axis.

What is at stake is the rivalry between two competing global currencies: the Euro and the US dollar, with Britain's pound being torn between the European and the US-dominated currency systems. Thus two rival financial and monetary systems are competing worldwide for control over money creation and credit. The geopolitical and strategic implications are far-reaching because they are also marked by splits in the Western defense industry and the oil business.

In both Europe and America, monetary policy, although formally under state jurisdiction, is largely controlled by the private banking sector. The European Central Bank based in Frankfurt- although officially under the jurisdiction of the European Union- is, in practice, overseen by a handful of private European banks, including Germany's largest banks and business conglomerates.

The US Federal Reserve Board is formally under state supervision-marked by a close relationship to the US Treasury. Unlike the European Central Bank, the 12 Federal Reserve banks (of which the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is the most important) are controlled by their shareholders, which are private banking institutions. In other words, "the Fed" as it is known in the US, which is responsible for monetary policy and hence money creation for the nation, is actually controlled by private financial interests.

Currency Systems and 'Economic Conquest'

In Eastern Europe, in the former Soviet Union and in the Balkans, extending into Central Asia, the dollar and the Euro are competing with one another. Ultimately, control over national currency systems is the basis upon which countries are colonized. While the US dollar prevails throughout the Western Hemisphere, the Euro and the US dollar are clashing in the former Soviet Union, Central Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East.

In the Balkans and the Baltic States, central banks largely operate as colonial style "currency boards" invariably using the Euro as a proxy currency. What this means is that German and European financial interests are in control of money creation and credit. In other words, the pegging of the national currency to the Euro- rather than to the US dollar-means that both the currency and the monetary system will be in the hands of German-EU banking interests.

More generally, the Euro dominates in Germany's hinterland: Eastern Europe, the Baltic States and the Balkans, whereas the US dollar tends to prevail in the Caucasus and Central Asia. In GUUAM countries (which have military cooperation agreements with Washington) the dollar tends (with the exception of the Ukraine) to overshadow the Euro.

The "dollarization" of national currencies is an integral part of America's SRS. The SRS consists of first destabilizing and then replacing national currencies with the American greenback over an area extending from the Mediterranean to China's Western border. The underlying objective is to extend the dominion of the Federal Reserve System-namely, Wall Street-over a vast territory.

What we are dealing with is an "imperial" scramble for control over national currencies. Control over money creation and credit is an integral part of the process of economic conquest, which in turn is supported by the militarization of the Eurasian corridor.

While American and German-EU banking interests are clashing over the control of national economies and currency systems, they seem to have agreed on "sharing the spoils"-i.e., establishing their respective "spheres of influence". Reminiscent of the policies of "partition" in the late 19th century, the US and Germany have agreed upon the division of the Balkans: Germany has gained control over national currencies in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo, where the Euro is legal tender. In return, the US has established a permanent military presence in the region (i.e., the Bondsteel military base in Kosovo).

Cross-cutting Military Alliances

The rift between Anglo-American and Franco-German weapons producers-including the rifts within the Western military alliance-seem to have favored increased military cooperation between Russia on the one hand, and France and Germany on the other.

In recent years, both France and Germany have entered into bilateral discussions with Russia in the areas of defense production, aerospace research and military cooperation. In late 1998, Paris and Moscow agreed to undertake joint infantry exercises and bilateral military consultations. In turn, Moscow has been seeking German and French partners to participate in the development of its military industrial complex.

In early 2000, Germany's Defense Minister, Rudolph Sharping, visited Moscow for bilateral consultations with his Russian counterpart. A bilateral agreement was signed pertaining to 33 military cooperation projects, including the training of Russian military specialists in Germany.(33) This agreement was reached outside the framework of NATO, and without prior consultation with Washington.

Russia also signed a "long term military cooperation agreement" with India in late 1998, which was followed a few months later by a defense agreement between India and France. The agreement between Delhi and Paris included the transfer of French military technology, as well as investment by French multinationals in India's defense industry. The latter investment includes facilities for the production of ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads, in which the French companies have expertise.

This Franco-Indian agreement has a direct bearing on Indo-Pakistani relations. It also impinges upon US strategic interests in Central and South Asia. While Washington has been pumping military aid into Pakistan, India is being supported by France and Russia.

Visibly, France and the US are on opposite sides of the India-Pakistan conflict.

With Pakistan and India at the brink of war, in the immediate wake of September 11, 2001, the US Air Force had virtually taken control of Pakistan's air space, as well as several of its military facilities. Meanwhile, barely a few weeks into the 2001 bombing of Afghanistan, France and India conducted joint military exercises in the Arabian Sea. Also in the immediate wake of September 11, India took delivery of large quantities of Russian weapons, under the Indo-Russian military cooperation agreement.

Moscow's New National Security Doctrine

US post-Cold War era foreign policy had designated Central Asia and the Caucasus as a "strategic area". Yet this policy no longer consisted in containing the "spread of communism", but rather in preventing Russia and China from becoming competing capitalist powers. In this regard, the US had increased its military presence along the entire 40th parallel, extending from Bosnia and Kosovo to the former Soviet republics of Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, all of which had entered into bilateral military agreements with Washington.

The 1999 war in Yugoslavia and the subsequent outbreak of war in Chechnya in September 1999 were crucial turning points in Russian-American relations. They also marked a rapprochement between Moscow and Beijing and the signing of several military cooperation agreements between Russia and China.

US covert support to the two main Chechen rebel groups (through Pakistan's ISI) was known to the Russian government and military. (For further details, see Chapter II.) However, it had never previously been made public or raised at the diplomatic level. In November 1999, the Russian Defense Minister, Igor Sergueyev, formally accused Washington of supporting the Chechen rebels. Following a meeting held behind closed doors with Russia's military high command, Sergueyev declared that:

"The national interests of the United States require that the military conflict in the Caucasus [Chechnya] be a fire, provoked as a result of outside forces," while adding that "the West's policy constitutes a challenge launched to Russia with the ultimate aim of weakening her international position and of excluding her from geo-strategic areas".(34)

In early 2000, in the wake of the Chechen war, a new "National Security Doctrine" was formulated and signed into law by President Vladimir Putin. Barely acknowledged by the international media, a critical shift in East-West relations had occurred. The document reasserted the building of a strong Russian state, the concurrent growth of the military and the reintroduction of state controls over foreign capital.

The document carefully spelled out what it described as "fundamental threats" to Russia's national security and sovereignty. More specifically, it referred to "the strengthening of military-political blocs and alliances" (namely GUUAM), as well as to "NATO's eastward expansion" while underscoring "the possible emergence of foreign military bases and major military presences in the immediate proximity of Russian borders".(35)

The document confirmed that "international terrorism is waging an open campaign to destabilize Russia". While not referring explicitly to CIA covert activities in support of armed terrorist groups, such as the Chechen rebels, it nonetheless called for appropriate "actions to avert and intercept intelligence and subversive activities by foreign states against the Russian Federation".(36)

Undeclared War Between Russia and America

The cornerstone of US foreign policy was to encourage-under the disguise of "peace-keeping" and "conflict resolution"-the formation of small pro-US states, which lie strategically at the hub of the Caspian Sea basin, which contains vast oil and gas reserves:

The US must play an increasingly active role in conflict resolution in the region. The boundaries of the Soviet republics were intentionally drawn to prevent secession by the various national communities of the former USSR and not with an eye towards possible independence.... Neither Europe, nor our allies in East Asia, can defend our [US] mutual interests in these regions. If we [the US] fail to take the lead in heading off the kinds of conflicts and crises that are already looming there, that will eventually exacerbate our relations with Europe and possibly Northeast Asia. It will encourage the worst kind of political developments in Russia. This linkage, or intercon-nectedness, gives the Transcaucasus and Central Asia a strategic importance to the United States and its allies that we overlook at huge risk. To put it another way, the fruits accruing from ending the Cold War are far from fully harvested. To ignore the Transcaucasus and Central Asia could mean that a large part of that harvest will never be gathered.(37)

Russia's Military Industrial Complex

Alongside the articulation of Moscow's National Security doctrine, the Russian State was planning to regain economic and financial control over key areas of Russia's military industrial complex. For instance, the formation of "a single corporation of designers and manufacturers of all anti-aircraft complexes" was envisaged in cooperation with Russia's defense contractors.(38)

This proposed "re-centralization" of Russia's defense industry, in response to national security considerations, was also motivated by the merger of major Western competitors in the area of military procurement. The development of new production and scientific capabilities was also contemplated, based on enhancing Russia's military potential as well as its ability to compete with its Western rivals in the global weapons market.

The National Security Doctrine also "eases the criteria by which Russia could use nuclear weapons...which would be permissible if the country's existence were threatened".(39)

Russia reserves the right to use all forces and means at its disposal, including nuclear weapons, in case an armed aggression creates a threat to the very existence of the Russian Federation as an independent sovereign state.(40)

In response to Washington's "Star Wars" initiative, Moscow had developed "Russia's Missile and Nuclear Shield". The Russian government announced in 1998 the development of a new generation of intercontinental ballistic missiles, known as Topol-M (SS-27). These new single-warhead missiles (based in the Saratov region) are currently in "full combat readiness", against a "pre-emptive first strike" from the US, which (in the wake of 9/11) constitutes the Pentagon's main assumption in an eventual nuclear war."The Topol M is lightweight and mobile, designed to be fired from a vehicle. Its mobility means it is better protected than a silo-based missile from a pre-emptive first strike."(41)

Following the adoption of the National Security Document (NSD) in 2000, the Kremlin confirmed that it would not exclude "a first-strike use" of nuclear warheads "if attacked even by purely conventional means".(42)

Political 'Turnaround'under President Vladimir Putin

The foreign policy directions of the Putin Administration remain unclear. There are significant divisions within both the political establishment and the military. On the diplomatic front, President Putin has sought a "rapprochement" with Washington and the Western Military Alliance in the "war on terrorism".

In the wake of 9/11, a significant turnaround in Russian foreign policy, largely orchestrated by President Putin, has occurred. The Putin Administration, acting against the Russian Duma, has, nonetheless, accepted the process of "NATO Enlargement" into the Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) implying the establishment of NATO military bases on Russia's western border.

Meanwhile, Moscow's military cooperation agreement signed with Beijing after the 1999 war in Yugoslavia was virtually on hold:

China is obviously watching with deep concern Russia surrendering these positions. China is also concerned by the presence of the US Air Force close to its borders in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and the Kyrghyz Republic....Everything that Mr. Putin has earned through the spectacular improvement of Russia's relations with China, India, Vietnam, Cuba and some other countries collapsed nearly overnight. What has surfaced is a primitive Gorbachev concept of "common human values"-i.e., the subordination of Russia's interests to those of the West.(43)

Ironically, the Russian President was supporting America's "war on terrorism", which is ultimately directed against Moscow. Washington's hidden agenda is to dismantle Russia's strategic and economic interests in the Eurasian corridor and close down or take over its military facilities, while transforming the former Soviet republics (and eventually the Russian Federation) into American protectorates:

It becomes clear that the intention to join NATO, expressed by Mr. Putin in an offhand manner last year [2000], reflected a long matured idea of a far deeper (i.e., in relation to the positions previously taken by Gorbachev or Yeltsin) integration of the Russian Federation into the "international community". In fact, the intention is to squeeze Russia into the Western economic, political and military system. Even as a junior partner. Even at the price of sacrificing an independent foreign policy.(44)

Notes

1. Quoted in Mary-Wynne Ashford,"Bombings Reignite Nuclear War Fears", The Victoria Times-Colonist. 13 May 1999, p. A15. Mary-Wynne Ashford is co-president of the Nobel Peace Prize winning IPPNW.

2. Quoted in Mary-Wynne Ashford, op. cit.

3. According to Viktor Chechevatov, a Three-star General and Commander of ground forces in Russia's Far East, quoted in The Boston Globe, 8 April 1999, emphasis added.

4. Ashford, op. cit.

5. Douglas Mattern, "The United States of Enron-Pentagon, Inc", Centre for Research on Globalization, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAT202A.html, February 2002.

6. Ibid.

7. See "Intelligence Funding and the War on Terror", CDI Terrorism Project at http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/intel-funding-pr.cfm, 2 February 2002. See also Patrick Martin, "Billions for War and Repression: Bush Budget for a Garrison State", World Socialist Website (WSWS), http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/ feb2002/mili-f06.shtml, 6 February 2002.

8. Federation of American Scientists (FAS) at http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/.

9. George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, 29 January 2002.

10. For further details on HAARP, see Michel Chossudovsky,"Washington's New World Order Weapons Have the Ability to Trigger Climate Change", Centre for Research on Globalization at globalresearch.ca, http://globalresearch.ca/ articles/CHO201A.html, January 2002.

11. See Bob Fitrakis, "Chemtrails Outlaw", Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FIT203A.html, 6 March 2002. See also Air University of the US Air Force, AF 2025 Final Report, http:// www.au.af.mil/au/2025/.

12. John Isaacs, President of the Council for a Livable World quoted in Paul Richter,"US Works Up Plan for Using Nuclear Arms", Los Angeles Times, 9 March 2002.

13. Paul Richter, "US Works Up Plan for Using Nuclear Arms", Los Angeles Times, 9 March 2002.

14. Quoted in The Houston Chronicle, 20 October 2001.

15. Cynthia Greer, The Philadelphia Inquirer, 16 October 2000.

16. Ibid.

17. William Arkin, "Secret Plan Outlines the Unthinkable", Los Angeles Times, 9 March 2002.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid.

20. Mother Jones, "Taiwan wants bigger Slingshot", http://www.mojones.com/ arms/taiwan.html, 2000.

21. Deutsche Press Agentur, 27 February 2000.

22. Japan Economic Newswire, March 4, 2000.

23. AFP, 12 December 2001.

24. William Arkin, op. cit.

25. Reuters, 5 February 2000.

26. For further details see Vago Muradian, "Pentagon Sees Bridge to Europe", Defense Daily, Vol. 204, No. 40, 1 December 1999.

27. Ibid.

28. Ibid. See also Michel Collon's analysis in Poker Menteur, Editions EPO, Brussels,
1998, p. 156.

29. Ibid., p. 156.

30."American Monsters, European Minnows: Defense Companies." The Economist, 13 January 1996.

31. British Aerospace Systems'home page at: http://www.BAESystems.com/ globalfootprint/northamerica/northamerica.htm.

32. "BAES, EADS Hopeful that Bush will broaden Transatlantic Cooperation", Defense Daily International, 29, 2001.

33. Interfax, 1 March 2000.

34. See The New York Times, 15 November 1999; see also the article of Steve Levine, The New York Times, 20 November 1999.

35. To consult the document, see Federation of American Scientists (FAS), http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/doctrine/gazeta012400.htm.

36. Ibid.

37. Joseph Jofi, Pipeline Diplomacy: The Clinton Administration's Fight for Baku-Ceyhan, Woodrow Wilson Case Study, No. 1. Princeton University, 1999.

38. Mikhail Kozyrev, "The White House Calls for the Fire", Vedomosti, Nov. 1, 1999, p.1.

39. See Andrew Jack, "Russia Turns Back Clock", Financial Times, London, 15 January 2000, p.1.

40. Quoted in Nicolai Sokov, "Russia's New National Security Concept: The Nuclear Angle", Centre for Non Proliferation Studies, Monterrey, http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/sokov2.htm, January 2000.

41. BBC, "Russia Deploys New Nuclear Missiles", London, 27 December 1998.

42. Stephen J. Blank, "Nuclear Strategy and Nuclear Proliferation in Russian Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States", Appendix III: Unclassified Working Papers, Federation of American Scientists (FAS),
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/missile/rumsfeld/toc-3.htm. Washington DC, undated.

43. V. Tetekin, "Putin's Ten Blows", Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) http://globalresearch.ca/articles/TET112A.html, 27 December 2001.

44. Ibid.

Read More..

The Trans-Afghan Pipeline

Chapter 6

Washington's Silk Road Strategy consists in not only excluding Russia from the westbound oil and gas pipeline routes out of the Caspian Sea basin, but also in securing Anglo-American control over strategic southbound and eastbound routes.

This strategy consists in isolating and eventually "encircling" the former Soviet republics by simultaneously taking control of both westbound and east/southbound corridors. In this regard, Washington's strategy in support of the oil giants is also to prevent the former republics from entering into pipeline ventures (or military cooperation agreements) with Iran and China.

According to the Washington-based Heritage Foundation, a conservative public policy organization, the American diplomatic dance with the Taliban was partly an attempt to prevent the construction of a pipeline through Iran and to reduce Russian leverage over Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan.(1)

Backed by the Clinton administration, Unocal, the California-based oil giant, developed a plan in 1995 to build an oil and gas pipeline route from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Arabian Sea. Unocal is also involved in the westbound Baku-Ceyan pipeline project out of Azerbaijan across Turkey and Georgia, together with BP, which has a majority stake in the consortium.

The CentGas Consortium

By transiting through Afghanistan, Unocal's CentGas pipeline project was meant to bypass the more direct southbound route across Iran. Unocal's design was to develop a dual pipeline system that would also transport Kazakhstan's huge oil reserves in the Tenghiz Northern Caspian region to the Arabian Sea.

Although the Russian oil giant Gazprom was part of the CentGas consortium, its participation was insignificant.(2) The hidden agenda was also to weaken Gazprom, which controls the Northbound gas pipeline routes out of Turkmenistan, and undermine the agreement between Russia and Turkmenistan, which handled the export of Turkmen gas through the network of Russian pipelines.

After Unocal had completed a first round of negotiations with Turkmenistan's President Niyazov, it opened talks with the Taliban.(3) In turn, the Clinton administration decided to back the installation of a Taliban government in Kabul in 1996, as opposed to the Northern Alliance, which was backed by Moscow:

Impressed by the ruthlessness and willingness of the then-emerging Taliban to cut a pipeline deal, the State Department and Pakistan's ISI agreed to funnel arms and funding to the Taliban in their war against the ethnically Tajik Northern Alliance. As recently as 1999, US taxpayers paid the entire annual salary of every single Taliban government official.(4)

Meanwhile, the Russians were providing logistical support and military supplies to General Massoud's Northern Alliance out of military bases in Tajikistan. When Kabul finally fell to the Taliban with the military backing of America's ally Pakistan, in September 1996, State Department spokesman Glyn Davies said the US found "nothing objectionable" in the steps taken by the Taliban to impose Islamic law. Senator Hank Brown, a supporter of the Unocal project, said "the good part of what has happened is that one of the factions at least seems capable of developing a government in Kabul." Unocal's Vice-President, Martin Miller, called the Taliban's success a "positive development".(5)

When the Taliban took Kabul in 1996, Washington said nothing. Why? Because Taliban leaders were soon on their way to Houston, Texas, to be entertained by executives of the oil company, Unocal....A US diplomat said, "The Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis did." He explained that Afghanistan would become an American oil colony, there would be huge profits for the West, no democracy and the legal persecution of women. "We can live with that", he said.(6)

Washington's endorsement of the Taliban regime instead of the Northern Alliance was part of the "Big Game" and the added rivalry between Russian and US conglomerates for control over oil and gas reserves, as well as pipeline routes out of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. In early 1997, Taliban officials met at Unocal's Texas office:

[Unocal's Barry] Lane says he wasn't involved in the Texas meetings and doesn't know whether then-Governor George W. Bush, an ex-oil man, ever had any involvement. Unocal's Texas spokesperson for Central Asia operations, Teresa Covington, said the consortium delivered three basic messages to the Afghan groups. "We gave them the details on the proposed pipelines. We also talked to them about the projects'benefits, such as the transit fees that would be paid," she says. "And we reinforced our position the project could not move forward until they stabilized their country and obtained political recognition from the US and the international community."

Covington says the Taliban were not surprised by that demand.... In December 1997, Unocal arranged a high-level meeting in Washington, DC, for the Taliban with Clinton's undersecretary of state for South Asia, Karl Inderforth. The Taliban delegation included Acting Minister for Mines and Industry Ahmad Jan, Acting Minister for Culture and Information, Amir Muttaqi, Acting Minister for Planning, Din Muhammad and Abdul Hakeem Mujahid, their permanent UN delegate.(7)

Two months following these negotiations, in February 1998, Unocal Vice President for International Relations, John Maresca, in a statement to the House Committee on International Relations, called for "the need for multiple pipeline routes for Central Asian oil and gas resources". (See Chapter 5.) Implied in his statement, US foreign policy in the region was to be geared towards destabilizing the north, west and southbound pipeline routes controlled by Russia, as well as competing pipelines through Iran:

[A] chief technical obstacle [or more likely political obstacle] which we in the industry face in transporting oil is the region's existing pipeline infrastructure. Because the region's pipelines were constructed during the Moscow-centred Soviet period, they tend to head north and west toward Russia. There are no connections to the south and east....

The key question then, is how the energy resources of Central Asia can be made available to nearby Asian markets.... One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed for American companies because of US sanctions legislation. The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades, and is still divided by civil war. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company.

Unocal foresees a pipeline which would become part of a regional system that would gather oil from existing pipeline infrastructure in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia. The 1,040-mile long oil pipeline would extend south through Afghanistan to an export terminal that would be constructed on the Pakistan coast. This 42-inch diameter pipeline would have a shipping capacity of one million barrels of oil per day. The estimated cost of the project, which is similar in scope to the trans-Alaska pipeline, is about $2.5 billion.

Without peaceful settlement of the conflicts in the region, cross-border oil and gas pipelines are not likely to be built. We urge the Administration and the Congress to give strong support to the UN-led peace process in Afghanistan. The US Government should use its influence to help find solutions to all of the region's conflicts.(8)

The Unocal-Bridas Feud

There was something else behind the Unocal pipeline project, which mainstream reports failed to mention. The Taliban had also been negotiating with an Argentinean oil group, Bridas Energy Corporation, and were "playing one company against the other".(9) Bridas belonged to the wealthy and powerful Bhulgeroni family. Carlos Bhulgeroni is a close friend of former Argentine President Carlos Menem, whose government was instrumental in implementing in 1990-under advice from the World Bank-a comprehensive deregulation of Argentina's oil and gas industry. This deregulation contributed to the enrichment of the Bhulgeroni family.

In 1992-several years prior to Unocal's involvement-Bridas Energy Corporation had obtained gas exploration rights in Eastern Turkmenistan, and the following year it was awarded the Keimir oil and gas block in Western Turkmenistan. Washington considered this an encroachment. It responded to Bridas'inroads into Central Asia by sending former Secretary of State Alexander Haig to lobby for "increased US investments" in Turkmenistan.(10) A few months later, Bridas was prevented from exporting oil from the Keimir block.

Unocal and Bridas were clashing in their attempts to gain political control. While Bridas had a head start in its negotiations with Turkmen officials, Unocal had the direct support of the US Government, which was acting both overtly (through diplomatic channels) as well as covertly to undermine Bridas Energy Corp.

In August 1995, at the height of the Afghan civil war, Bridas representatives met up with Taliban officials to discuss the pipeline project. Meanwhile, Turkmen President Saparmurat Niyasov had been invited to New York (October 1995) to sign an agreement with Unocal and its CentGas consortium partner, Delta Oil Corporation of Saudi Arabia. The agreement was signed by President Niyazov of Turkmenistan and John F. Imle, Jr., President of Unocal, and witnessed by Badr M. Al-Aiban, CEO of Delta Oil Corporation.

Bridas and the Taliban

In February 1996, Bridas Energy Corporation of Argentina and the Taliban provisional government signed a preliminary agreement. Washington responded through its embassy in Islamabad, urging Pakistan's Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto to dump Bridas and grant exclusive rights to Unocal.(11) Meanwhile, the Clinton administration had funnelled, through Pakistan's ISI, military aid to advancing Taliban forces. This support was a crucial factor in the Taliban's takeover of Kabul in September 1996. Following the installation of a hard-line Islamic government, Unocal confirmed that "it will give aid to Afghan warlords once they agree to form a council to supervise the project".(12)

Back in Texas, Bridas Energy Corporation filed a $15 billion lawsuit against Unocal, accusing it of dirty tricks and interference in:

...secretly contacting the Turkmen deputy prime minister for oil and gas [in 1996] about its own pipeline plan. According to a Bridas source, the Turkmen government then made an overnight decision to cut off the export of oil from Bridas'Keimir field on the Caspian Sea. The company also alleges that the deputy prime minister demanded that Bridas, with its cash flow strangled, renegotiate its concession."We found written evidence that Unocal was behind the curtains," the Bridas source said.(13)

BP-Amoco Enter the Pipeline Saga

Facing pending financial difficulties, 60 per cent of Bridas shares were sold in August 1997 to the American Oil Company (Amoco), leading to the formation of the Pan American Energy Corporation. The bidders in the Bridas merger were Amoco and Union Texas Petroleum of the United States, France's Total, Royal Dutch Shell, Spain's Endesa and a consortium including Spain's Repsol and US Mobil.

For Amoco, which later merged with BP in 1998, Bridas was a prize acquisition, which was facilitated by Chase Manhattan and Morgan Stanley. Former National Security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, was a consultant to Amoco. Arthur Andersen-the accounting firm implicated in the 2002 Enron scandal-was put in charge of "post-merger integration".(14)

BP-Amoco is the main player in the Westbound pipeline routes out of the Caspian Sea basin including the controversial Baku-Ceyan pipeline project through Georgia and Turkey. By acquiring Bridas, the BP-led consortium gained a direct stake in the east and southbound pipeline negotiations.

Unocal is both a "rival" as well as a consortium "partner" of BP. In other words, BP controls the westbound pipeline consortium in which Unocal has a significant stake. With Bridas in the hands of BP-Amoco, however, it is unlikely that a future trans-Afghan pipeline will proceed without the consent and/or participation of BP:

Recognizing the significance of the merger, a Pakistani oil company executive hinted, "If these [Central Asian] countries want a big US company involved, Amoco is far bigger than Unocal."(15)
Following the takeover of Bridas by Amoco, Bridas'successor company, Pan American Energy Corporation, continued to actively negotiate with the Taliban. But the dynamics of these negotiations had been fundamentally modified. Pan American Energy was negotiating on behalf of its Chicago-based parent company Amoco. Moreover, the Clinton administration had abandoned its dirty tricks and was now backing Amoco's subsidiary.

Meanwhile, in August 1998, Amoco and BP announced their decision to unite their global operations leading to the formation (together with Atlantic Ritchfield) of the world's largest oil company.

The Bridas-Unocal rivalry had evolved towards "a fall-out" between two major US corporations (Unocal and BP-Amoco), which were also "partners" in the westbound pipeline projects. Both Unocal and BP-Amoco have extensive links to seats of political power, not only in the White House and Congress, but also with the military and intelligence establishment in charge of covert operations in Central Asia. Both companies contributed generously to the Bush presidential campaign.

The merger between BP and Amoco (leading to the integration of British and American oil interests) had no doubt also contributed to the development of closer political ties between the British and US Governments. Responding to the merger of American and British interests in oil, banking and the military-industrial complex, Britain's new Labour government, under Prime Minister Tony Blair, has become America's unconditional ally.

The US Embassy Bombings

In the course of 1998, talks between Taliban and Unocal officials had stalled. The honeymoon was over. Then came the East African US Embassy bombings, allegedly by Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, and the launching of cruise missiles against targets in Afghanistan.

The official suspension of negotiations with the Taliban was announced by Unocal in August 1998 in the immediate wake of the punitive actions against Afghanistan and Sudan, ordered by President Clinton. Whether the 1997 takeover of Bridas by Amoco and the subsequent merger of BP-Amoco (also in August 1998) had a bearing on Unocal's decision remains unclear. Nonetheless, "the Big Game" had evolved: Unocal was now competing against the world's largest oil company, BP-Amoco.

The Texas Court Case: BP-Amoco (Bridas) versus Unocal

Two months later in this evolving saga, in October 1998, a Texas court dismissed the (formerly Argentinian-owned) Bridas' US$15 billion lawsuit against Unocal "for preventing them developing gas fields in Turkmenistan".(16) It turned out that the court ruling was in fact against Bridas'parent company, BP-Amoco, which had, a year earlier, acquired a controlling stake in Bridas.

In all likelihood, there was a mutual understanding between Unocal and BP-Amoco, which are consortium partners in the Caspian Sea basin. Moreover, while Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former National Security Adviser (in a Democratic administration), was acting as a consultant for Amoco, Henry Kissinger, a former Secretary of State (in a Republican administration), was advising Unocal Corporation.

The acquisition of Bridas by BP-Amoco suggests that BP will, in all likelihood, be a major player in future pipeline negotiations, most probably in an agreement with Unocal.

Unocal Withdraws But Only Temporarily

While Unocal had formally withdrawn from the CentGas consortium in the wake of the cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan and the Sudan, BP-Amoco's subsidiary, Pan American Energy, (the successor company to Bridas), continued to actively negotiate with Afghan, Russian, Turkmen and Kazakh officials regarding the trans-Afghan pipeline project.

Meanwhile, a turnaround had occurred in US foreign policy under the Clinton administration towards Bridas: No more dirty tricks against a company which is now owned by one of America's largest oil conglomerates! Visibly, in the last two years of the Clinton administration, Unocal's rival in the pipeline negotiations, BP-Amoco, had the upper hand.

Despite Unocal's temporary withdrawal, the CentGas consortium was not disbanded. Unocal's partner, Delta Oil Corporation of Saudi Arabia, in CentGas continued to negotiate with the Taliban.

George W. Bush Enters the White House

The evolving pipeline saga gained a new momentum upon George W. Bush's accession to the White House in January 2001.

At the very outset of the Bush administration, Unocal (which had withdrawn in 1998 from pipeline negotiations under the Clinton administration) reintegrated the CentGas Consortium and resumed its talks with the Taliban (in January 2001), with the firm backing, this time, of senior officials of the Bush administration, including Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage. Dick Armitage had previously been a lobbyist for Unocal in the Burma/Myanmar Forum, which is a Washington-based group funded by Unocal.(17)

These negotiations with the Taliban occurred only a few months before the September 11 attacks:
Laila Helms [daughter of Senator Jesse Helms], who was hired as the public relations agent for the Taliban government, brought Rahmatullah Hashimi, an advisor to Mullah Omar, to Washington as recently as March 2001. Helms was uniquely positioned for the job through her association with her uncle Richard Helms, former chief of the CIA and former Ambassador to Iran. One of the negotiating meetings was held just one month before September 11, on August 2, when Christina Rocca, in charge of Asian Affairs at the State Department, met Taliban Ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salem Zaef, in Islamabad.

Rocca has had extensive connections with Afghanistan, including supervising the delivery of Stinger missiles to the Mujahideen in the 1980s. At the CIA, she had been in charge of contacts with Islamist fundamentalist guerrilla groups.(18)

Unocal 'Appoints'Interim Government in Kabul

In the wake of the bombing of Afghanistan, the Bush administration designated Hamid Karzai as head of the interim government in Kabul. While highlighting Karzai's patriotic struggle against the Taliban, what the media failed to mention is that Karzai had collaborated with the Taliban government. He had also been on Unocal's payroll.

In fact, since the mid-1990s, Hamid Karzai, who later became President, had acted as a consultant and lobbyist for Unocal in negotiations with the Taliban. His appointment-visibly on behalf of the US oil giants-had been casually rubber-stamped by the "international community" at the November 2001 Bonn conference, held under UN auspices.

According to the Saudi newspaper Al-Watan:

Karzai has been a Central Intelligence Agency covert operator since the 1980s. He collaborated with the CIA in funneling US aid to the Taliban as of 1994 "when the Americans had-secretly and through the Pakistanis [specifically the ISI]-supported the Taliban's assumption of power."(19)
"Coincidentally, President Bush's Special Envoy to Kabul, Zalmay Khalizad, had also worked for Unocal. He had drawn up the risk analysis for the pipeline in 1997, lobbied for the Taliban and took part in negotiations with them."(20) Khalizad had occupied the position of Special Advisor to the State Department during the Reagan administration,"lobbying successfully for accelerated US military aid to the Mujahideen".

He later became Undersecretary of Defense in the Bush Senior Cabinet.(21) When George W. was inaugurated in January 2001, Khalizad was appointed to the National Security Council. While Clinton's foreign policy had provided support to US oil interests in Central Asia, under the Republicans oil company officials were brought into the inner sphere of political decision-making.

The 'Reconstruction'of Afghanistan

Washington had set the stage. According to a World Bank representative in Kabul, "reconstruction in Afghanistan [was] going to open up a whole range of opportunities."(22)

Two days after the bombing of Afghanistan commenced, on October 9, the US Ambassador to Pakistan, Wendy Chamberlain, met with Pakistani officials regarding the trans-Afghan pipeline. The pipeline, according to the report, was slated to "open up new avenues of multi-dimensional regional cooperation, particularly in light of recent geopolitical developments [bombing of Afghanistan] in the region".(23)

With Afghanistan under US military occupation, the role of Hamid Karzai as the country's President is to "broker" the pipeline deal on behalf of the Anglo-American oil giants with the firm backing of the Bush administration.

In the immediate wake of the October 2001 bombing raids, the media reported that "two small companies", Chase Energy and Caspian Energy Consulting (acting on behalf of major oil interests), had contacts with the governments of Turkmenistan and Pakistan to revive the pipeline deal. While the identity of the oil companies behind these "small firms" was not mentioned, it just so happens that the President of Caspian Sea Consulting, S. Rob Sobhani, had been a consultant to BP-Amoco in Central Asia. Sobhani also sits on the Council of Foreign Relations'"Caspian Sea Discourse", together with representatives of major oil companies, the George Soros Open Society Institute, the CIA and the Heritage Foundation (a Republican party think tank).

According to S. Rob Sobhani:

It is absolutely essential that the US make the pipeline the centerpiece of rebuilding Afghanistan.... The State Department thinks it's a great idea, too. Routing the gas through Iran would be avoided, and the Central Asian republics wouldn't have to ship through Russian pipelines.(24)

According to Joseph Noemi, CEO of Chase Energy, September 11, and the "War on Terrorism" are a blessing in disguise for Afghanistan:

If the United States'presence continues in the region, [September 11] is probably the best thing that could have happened here for the Central Asian republics … . This region, in terms of oil economics, is the frontier for this century … and Afghanistan is part and parcel of this.25

Notes:

1. Knight Ridder News, 31 October 2001.

2. Jim Crogan, "The Oil War", LA Weekly, 30 November 2001.

3. Ibid.

4. Ted Rall, "It's About Oil", San Francisco Chronicle, 2 November 2001, p. A25.

5. Ishtiaq Ahmad, "How America Courted Taliban", Pakistan Observer, 20 October 2001.

6. John Pilger, "This War is a Fraud", Daily Mirror, 29 October 2001.

7. Jim Crogan, "Pipeline Payoff to Afghanistan War", California CrimeTimes, November 2001, http://www.californiacrimetimes.com/. See also Jim Crogan, "The Oil War: Unocal's once-grand plan for Afghan pipelines", LA Weekly, 30 November-6 December 2001.

8. US Congress, Hearing on US Interests in the Central Asian Republics, House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, Committee on International Relations, Washington, DC, http://commdocs.house.gov/ committees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0f.htm.
See Karen Talbot,"US Energy Giant Unocal Appoints Interim Government in Kabul", Global Outlook, No. 1, Spring 2002, p. 70.

10. "Timeline of Competition Between Unocal and Bridas", World Press Review, December 2001, www.worldpress.org.

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid.

13. Alexander Gas and Oil Connections, http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/com-pany/cnc75005.htm, 12 August 1997.

14. Larry Chin, "Unocal and the Afghanistan Pipeline", Online Journal, 6 March 2002, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), http://www.globalresearch.ca/ articles/CHI203A.html, 6 March 2002.

15. Ibid.

16. Timeline, op. cit.

17. Larry Chin, op. cit.

18. See Karen Talbot, "US Energy Giant Unocal Appoints Interim Government in Kabul", Global Outlook, No. 1, Spring 2002. p. 70.

19. Karen Talbot, op. cit. and BBC Monitoring Service, 15 December 2001.

20. Karen Talbot, op. cit.

21. Patrick Martin,"Unocal Advisor Named Representative to Afghanistan", World Socialist Web Site, 3 January 2002.

22. Statement of William Byrd, World Bank Acting Country Manager for Afghanistan, 27 November 2001.

23. Quoted in Larry Chin, "The Bush administration's Afghan Carpet", Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ CHI203B.html, 13 March 2002.

24. Daniel Fisher, "Kabuled Together", Forbes Online, 4 February 2002,
http://www.forbes.com.

25. Knight Ridder News, 30 October 2001.

Read More..

War and the Hidden Agenda

Conquest of Oil Reserves and Pipeline Routes

Part II War and Globalization
Chapter 5

"America's New War" consists in extending the global market system while opening up new "economic frontiers" for US corporate capital. More specifically, the US-led military invasion- in close liaison with Britain-responds to the interests of the Anglo-American oil giants, in alliance with America's "Big Five" weapons producers: Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, Boeing and General Dynamics.

The "Anglo-American axis" in defense and foreign policy is the driving force behind the military operations in Central Asia and Middle East. This rapprochement between London and Washington is consistent with the integration of British and American business interests in the areas of banking, oil and the defense industry. The merger of British Petroleum (BP) and the American Oil Company (AMOCO) into the world's largest oil conglomerate has a direct bearing on the pattern of Anglo-American relations and the close relationship between the US President and the British Prime Minister. In the wake of the 1999 war in Yugoslavia, Britain's giant weapons producer, British Aerospace Systems (BAES), was fully integrated into the US system of defense procurement.

The Planning of War

In fact, the planning of America's New War has been in the "pipeline" for at least three years prior to the tragic events of September 11. At the outset of the 1999 war in Yugoslavia, the "enlargement" of the Western military alliance was proclaimed with the acceptance by NATO of Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic into its fold. This enlargement was directed against Yugoslavia and Russia.

-----

TEXT BOX 5.1

Military Action against Afghanistan

"A former Pakistani Foreign Secretary [Mr. Naik] was told by senior American officials [during a UN-sponsored international contact group meeting on Afghanistan in mid-July 2001] that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October [2001].... The wider objective, according to Mr. Naik, would be to topple the Taliban regime.... Mr. Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place. Bin Laden would [be] 'killed or captured'.

"He was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation...Mr. Naik was told that if the military action went ahead, it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest. He said that he was in no doubt that after the World Trade Center bombings, this pre-existing US plan had been built upon and would be implemented within two or three weeks. And he said it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taliban."(1)

-----

In April 1999, barely a month into the bombing of Yugoslavia, the Clinton administration announced the planned extension of NATO's dominion into the heartland of the former Soviet Union. Coinciding with the ceremony of NATO's 50th anniversary, the heads of state from Georgia, the Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldava were in attendance in the plush decorum of the Andrew Mellon Auditorium in Washington. They had been invited to NATO's three day celebration to sign GUUAM (Georgia, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldava). GUUAM is a regional military alliance which lies strategically at the hub of the Caspian oil and gas wealth,"with Moldava and the Ukraine offering [pipeline] export routes to the West".(2) Georgia, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan immediately announced that they would be leaving the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)' "security union", which defines the framework of military cooperation between the former Soviet republics, as well their links to Moscow.

The formation of GUUAM (under NATO's umbrella and financed by Western military aid) was intent upon further fracturing the CIS. The Cold War, although officially over, had not yet reached its climax. The members of this new pro-NATO political grouping were not only supportive of the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia, they had also agreed to "low level military cooperation" with NATO, while insisting that "the group is not a military alliance directed against any third party, namely Moscow".(3) Dominated by Anglo-American oil interests, the formation of GUUAM ultimately purports to exclude Russia from the oil and gas deposits in the Caspian area, as well as isolating Moscow politically.

Militarization of the Eurasian Corridor

Just five days before the bombing of Yugoslavia (19 March 1999), the US Congress adopted the Silk Road Strategy Act, which defined America's broad economic and strategic interests in a region extending from the Mediterranean to Central Asia. The Silk Road Strategy (SRS) outlines a framework for the development of America's business empire along an extensive geographical corridor: (See map page Middle East Theatre of War.)

The ancient Silk Road, once the economic lifeline of Central Asia and the South Caucasus, traversed much of the territory now within the countries of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kirghizstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.... One hundred years ago, Central Asia was the arena for a great game played by Czarist Russia, Colonial Britain, Napoleon's France, and the Persian and the Ottoman Empires. Allegiances meant little during this struggle for empire building, where no single empire could gain the upper hand.

One hundred years later, the collapse of the Soviet Union has unleashed a new great game, where the interests of the East India Trading Company have been replaced by those of Unocal and Total [oil companies], and many other organizations and firms. Today [we are seeing] the interests of a new contestant in this new great game, the United States. The five [former Soviet republics] which make up Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Kirghizstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan...are anxious to establish relations with the United States. Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan possess large reserves of oil and natural gas, both on-shore and off-shore in the Caspian Sea, which they urgently seek to exploit. Uzbekistan [also] has oil and gas reserves.4
Under the SRS, US foreign policy consists in undermining and eventually destabilizing its competitors in the oil business including Russia, Iran and China:

Stated US policy goals regarding energy resources in this region include fostering the independence of the States and their ties to the West; 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 transit [through] Iran; and denying Iran dangerous leverage over the Central Asian economies....

Central Asia would seem to offer significant new investment opportunities for a broad range of American companies which, in turn, will serve as a valuable stimulus to the economic development of the region. Japan, Turkey, Iran, Western Europe, and China are all pursuing economic development opportunities and challenging Russian dominance in the region. It is essential that US policymakers understand the stakes involved in Central Asia as we seek to craft a policy that serves the interests of the United States and US business.(5)

While the SRS sets the stage for incorporating the former Soviet republics into America's business empire, the GUUAM military alliance defines "cooperation" in the area of defense, including the stationing of US troops in the former Soviet republics. Under GUUAM auspices, the US has established a military base in Uzbekistan, which was used as a launch pad for its October 2001 invasion of Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks.

The Silk Road Strategy Act points to the establishment under Washington's protection-i.e., explicitly directed against Moscow-of "strong political, economic, and security ties among countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia" .

Also, under the guidance of the US Government, working closely with the IMF and the World Bank, these former Soviet Republics are to establish:

...open market economies and open democratic systems in the countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia [which] will provide positive incentives for international private investment, increased trade, and other forms of commercial interactions.(6)

Backed by US military might, the SRS is to open up a vast geographical region to US corporations and financial institutions. The stated purpose is "to promote political and economic liberalization" including the adoption of "free market reforms" under IMF-World Bank-WTO supervision.

In a region extending from the Black Sea to the Chinese border, the objective of the SRS is to instate a US-controlled "free trade area" composed of eight former Soviet republics. This extensive corridor-which until recently was largely within Moscow's economic and geopolitical orbit-will eventually transform the entire region into a patchwork of American protectorates.

The SRS not only constitutes a continuation of US foreign policy of the Cold War era, but it also designates Israel as America's "partner" in the Silk Road corridor:
Many of the countries of the South Caucasus have secular Muslim governments that are seeking closer alliance with the United States and that have active and cordial diplomatic relations with Israel.(7)

Oil Politics

Afghanistan is, in many regards, strategic. It not only borders the "Silk Road Corridor" linking the Caucasus to China's Western border, it is also at the hub of five nuclear powers: China, Russia, India, Pakistan and Kazakhstan. While the bombing of Afghanistan was still ongoing, an interim "government"-designated by the "international community"-was installed in Kabul on the Bosnia-Kosovo model. The underlying objective, of course, is to militarize Afghanistan with a permanent presence of "peacekeeping troops".

Afghanistan is at the strategic crossroads of the Eurasian oil pipeline and transport routes. It also constitutes a potential land-bridge for the southbound oil pipeline from the former Soviet republic of Turkmenistan to the Arabian Sea across Pakistan, which had initially been negotiated by Unocal with the Taliban government. (For further details see Chapter 6.)

The former Soviet republics of Central Asia-Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and especially "the new Kuwait", Kazakhstan-have vast oil and gas reserves. But Russia has refused to allow the US to extract it through Russian pipelines and Iran is considered a dangerous route. That left Afghanistan. The US oil company Chevron-where Mr. Bush's National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, was a director throughout the 1990s-is deeply involved in Kazakhstan. In 1995, another US company, Unocal (formerly Union Oil Company of California), signed a contract to export $8 billion worth of natural gas through a $3 billion pipeline which would go from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan.(8)

The oil and natural gas reserves of "the Eurasian Corridor" are substantial, at least of the same size of those in the Persian Gulf.(9)

The region of the South Caucasus and Central Asia could produce oil and gas in sufficient quantities to reduce the dependence of the United States on energy from the volatile Persian Gulf region. United States foreign policy and international assistance should be narrowly targeted to support the economic and political independence as well as democracy building, free market policies, human rights and regional economic integration of the countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia.(10)

"Political and military conditions" in the region (meaning Russia's presence and influence) have been viewed by both the Clinton and Bush administrations as:

...presenting obstacles to bringing this energy to the global market....Both regions are the object of outside states competing for influence there. Not only Russia, but also China, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are competitively engaged, often in non-constructive ways....If we [the US] and our allies cannot manage the second and third sets of realities, we will forego the benefits of the first set of realities. Bringing the oil and gas to market will be sporadic, if not impossible, and far more costly. At the same time, the resulting political instabilities may turn both regions into a cauldron of civil wars and political violence, inevitably drawing in the surrounding states. We already have this pattern in the Persian Gulf region, requiring US military involvement, and we could hardly stand by politically, even if we did so militarily, if conflicts entangle Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan and some of the Arab states in the Trans-caucasus or Central Asia.(11)

In other words, the successful implementation of the SRS requires the concurrent "militarization" of the Eurasian corridor as a means to securing control over extensive oil and gas reserves, as well as "protecting" the pipeline routes on behalf of the Anglo-American oil companies. "[A] successful international oil regime is a combination of economic, political and military arrangements to support oil production and transportation to markets."(12)

In the words of a (former) CIA "policy analyst":

Whoever has control over certain kinds of pipelines and certain kinds of investments in the region does have a certain amount of geopolitical clout. Such clout is something of a commodity itself, even if the physical control of the oil is not. For much of the Third World, this is a newer way of thinking about resources; it's no longer the old story of Hitler's Germany trying to get to the Caucasus and use the oil for its own purposes in World War II.(13)

Under the SRS Act, Washington commits itself to "fostering stability in this region, which is vulnerable to political and economic pressures from the South, North and East," suggesting that "the threat to stability" is not only from Moscow (to the North) but also from China (to the East) and Iran and Iraq (to the South). The SRS is also intended to prevent the former Soviet republics from developing economic, political and defense ties with China, Iran, Turkey and Iraq.

Covert Operations on Behalf of the Oil Giants

Under the Bush administration, the US oil giants have gained direct access to the planning of military and intelligence operations on their behalf. This has been achieved through the powerful Texas oil lobby, resulting in the appointment of (former) oil company executives to key defense and foreign policy positions:

President George W. Bush's family has been running oil companies since 1950. Vice President Dick Cheney spent the late '90s as CEO of Haliburton, the world's largest oil services company. National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice sat on the board of Chevron, which graced a tanker with her name. Commerce Secretary Donald Evans was the CEO of Tom Brown Inc.-a natural gas company with fields in Texas, Colorado and Wyoming-for more than a decade. The links don't end with personnel. The bin Laden family and other members of Saudi Arabia's oil-wealthy elite have contributed mightily to several Bush family ventures, even as the American energy industry helped put Bush in office. Of the top 10 lifetime contributors to George W.'s war chests, six either come from the oil business or have ties to it.(14)

Protecting Multiple Pipelines

In the context of GUUAM and the SRS, Washington has encouraged the formation of pro-US client states strategically located along oil pipeline routes. The latter are to be "protected" by NATO under GUUAM and various other military cooperation agreements. The hidden agenda is to eventually cut the Russians off altogether from the Caspian oil and gas fields.

The oil giants are vying for control over the oil reserves of Azerbaijan, as well as strategic pipeline routes out of the Azeri capital Baku on the Caspian coast.

A pro-US regime was installed in Azerbaijan under President Heydar Aliyevich Aliyev in 1993. In the military coup which brought him to power, Aliyev-a former KGB official and Communist party politburo member-was allied to Suret Husseinov, leader of the Jadovov clan.

In 1994 "the Contract of the Century", involving the development of the Charyg oil fields near Baku, was signed with the Western oil consortium led by BP-Amoco. The Aliyev clan was in control of SOCAR, the State Oil Company, which has entered into joint ventures with the oil conglomerates. In addition to the links of the Azeri State to narcotics, there is evidence of a profitable black-market trade in raw materials, including trade of copper, nickel and other metals.

Western financial institutions, including the World Bank, had been actively involved in opening up the Azeri oil and gas fields to Western transnationals. Generous money payoffs had been channeled to politicians and state officials. The criminalization of the Azeri State had largely facilitated the entry of foreign capital:

Azerbaijan's leaders are wined and dined on oil company expense accounts, while 600,000 Azeris still live in the most horrendous conditions....The snake oil companies act as agents of their coun-tries'foreign policies and try to obtain commercial favors from Azeri leaders, who are ready to sell Azerbaijan's resources cheaply and for personal gains.... Over $6 billion in contract "signing bonuses" were paid to the Aliyev regime in Baku-by far more than all aid and investments in Georgia and Armenia combined-yet Azeris still live in refugee camps, worse off than even Georgians and Armenians.(15)

With a view to weakening Moscow's control over Caspian oil, several alternative pipeline routes had been envisaged. The Baku-Supsa pipeline-inaugurated in 1999 during the War in Yugoslavia and protected militarily by GUUAM-totally bypasses Russian territory. The oil is transported by pipeline from Baku to the Georgian port of Supsa, where it is shipped by tanker to the Pivdenny terminal near Odessa in the Ukraine. Both Georgia and the Ukraine are part of the GUUAM military alliance.

This Pivdenny terminal has been financed-in agreement with the (neo-fascist) government of President Leonid Kuchma-by Western loans. From there, the oil can be transported by pipeline "connecting to the already existing southern branch of the Druzhba pipeline, which runs through Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic".(16)

NATO enlargement, announced shortly before the inauguration of the Baku-Supsa route, also ensures the protection of the connecting pipeline routes which transit through Hungarian and Czech territory. In other words, the entire pipeline route out of the Caspian sea basin transits through countries which are under the protection of the Western military alliance.

Chechnya at the Crossroads of Strategic Pipelines

Russia's Soviet era pipeline linked the Azeri port of Baku on the Southern tip of the Caspian Sea, via Grozny, to Tikhoretsk. This pipeline route, controlled by the Russian state, terminates at Novorossiysk, and Chechnya is located at the crossroads of this strategic pipeline route.

During the Soviet era, Novorossiysk was the terminal for both the Kazakh and Azeri pipelines. Since the end of the Cold War and the opening up of the Caspian oil fields to foreign capital, Washington has incorporated the Ukraine and Georgia into its sphere of influence. Their membership in the GUUAM military alliance is crucial to Western pipeline plans, which are intent upon bypassing the Novorossiysk terminal, as well as shunting Moscow's influence over the pipelines crossing its own territory.

In the immediate wake of the Cold War, Washington encouraged the secession of Chechnya from the Russian Federation by providing covert support to the two main rebel factions. As discussed in Chapter 2, the Islamic insurgencies in Chechnya were supported by Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda and Pakistan's ISI.

In 1994, Moscow went to war in order to protect its strategic pipeline route threatened by Chechen rebels. In August 1999 the pipeline was temporarily put out of order when the Chechen rebel army invaded Dagestan, triggering the Kremlin's decision to send federal troops into Chechnya.

The evidence suggests that the CIA was behind the Chechen rebels, using Pakistan's ISI as a "go-between". Washington's "hidden agenda" consisted in weakening the control of the Russian oil companies and the Russian state over the pipeline routes through Chechnya and Dagestan. Ultimately, Washington's objective is to separate Dagestan and Chechnya from the Russian Federation, thereby bringing a large part of the territory between the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea under the "protection" of the Western military alliance.

Under this scenario, Russia would be excluded from the Caspian Sea. All the existing as well as future pipeline routes and transport corridors between the Caspian and Black Seas would be in the hands of the Anglo-American oil giants. The covert operations led by Pakistan's ISI in support of the Chechen rebels once again serve the interests of the Anglo-American oil giants.

The BP-Amoco Consortium

Shouldered by BP-Amoco, a US client government had been installed in Azerbaijan. President Aliyev has established himself by distributing power to various members of his family. In Azerbaijan, a modest $8 billion investment is estimated to yield profits of more than $40 billion to Western oil companies.(17) BP-Amoco was particularly anxious to shunt competing bids from Russia's Lukoil. The Anglo-American consortium led by BP-Amoco also included Unocal, McDermott and Pennzoil, together with Turkey's TPAO. Unocal was also the main player in the pipeline project across Afghanistan to the Arabian Sea. (See Chapter 6.)

The BP-Amoco consortium owns 60 per cent of the shares in the Azerbaijani International Operating Corporation (AIOC). In 1997, in a separate venture, Vice President Al Gore was instrumental in the signing of a major oil deal with SOCAR allowing Chevron (now allied with Texaco) to acquire control over vast oil reserves in the southern Caspian Sea.(18) Chevron is also involved in the Northern Caspian region of Kazakhstan through its joint venture Tengizchevroil. In other words, prior to the 2000 Presidential elections, both George W. Bush and Al Gore, the two opposing candidates, had already made commitments to competing oil conglomerates in the Caspian Sea basin.

Europe versus Anglo-America: The Clash of Competing Oil Interests

The Anglo-American oil giants, supported by US military might, are directly competing with Europe's oil giant Total-Fina-Elf- associated with Italy's ENI, which is a big player in Kazakhstan's wealthy North East Caspian Kashagan oil fields. The stakes are high: Kashagan is reported to have deposits "so large as to even surpass the size of the North Sea oil reserves".(19)

The competing EU-based consortium, however, lacks a significant stake and leverage in the main pipeline routes out of the Caspian Sea basin and back (via the Black Sea and through the Balkans) to Western Europe. The key pipeline corridor projects are largely in the hands of their Anglo-American rivals.

The Franco-Belgian consortium Total-Fina-Elf, in partnership with Italy's ENI, also has sizeable investments in Iran. Total had established, together with Russia's Gazprom and Malaysia's Petronas, a joint venture with the National Iranian Oil company (NIOC). Predictably, Washington has, on several occasions, attempted to break France's deal with Tehran on the grounds that it openly contravened the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act.

What this suggests is that Europe's largest oil conglomerate, dominated by French and Italian oil interests in association with their Iranian and Russian partners, are potentially on a collision course with the dominant Anglo-American oil consortia, which in turn are backed by Washington.

Russia's Oil Transnationals

Russia's major oil groups, while establishing strong ties to the Franco-Italian consortium, have, nonetheless, also entered into joint ventures with the Anglo-American groups.

While Russia's oil companies are supported by the Russian state and military against Western encroachment, several of Russia's major oil giants (including Lukoil and the State-owned company Rosneft) are participating in the Anglo-American pipeline projects as junior partners.

The Anglo-American oil companies are intent upon eventually taking over the Russian oil companies and excluding Russia from the Caspian Sea basin. At the same time, the Anglo-American groups are clashing with the Franco-Italian consortium, which in turn has ties to Russian and Iranian oil interests.

The militarization of the Eurasian corridor is an integral part of Washington's foreign policy agenda. In this regard, America's quest to control the Eurasian pipeline corridors on behalf of the Anglo-American oil giants is not only directed against Russia, it is also intended to weaken competing European oil interests in the Transcaucasus and Central Asia.

Notes:

1. George Arney, "US planned attack on Taliban", BBC, 18 September 2001.

2. Financial Times, London, 6 May 1999, p. 2.

3. Ibid.

4. US Congress, Hearing On US Interests In The Central Asian Republics, House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, Committee on International Relations, Washington, DC, http://commdocs.house.gov/commit-tees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0f.htm, Washington DC, 12 February 1998.

5. Ibid.

6. US Congress, Silk Road Strategy Act, 106th Congress, 1st Session, S. 579, "To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to target assistance to support the economic and political independence of the countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia", US Senate, Washington DC, March 10, 1999.

7. Ibid.

8. Lara Marlowe, "US efforts to make peace summed up by 'oil'", Irish Times, 19 November 2001.

9. Lt.-Gen. William E. Odom, USA, Ret, "US Policy Toward Central Asia and the South Caucasus", Caspian Crossroads Magazine, Volume 3, Issue No.1, Summer 1997.

10. Ibid.

11. Ibid.

12. Robert V. Baryiski, "The Caspian Oil Regime: Military Dimensions", Caspian Crossroads Magazine, Volume 1, Issue No. 2, Spring 1995.

13. Graham Fuller, "Geopolitical Dynamics of the Caspian Region", Caspian Crossroads Magazine, Volume 3, Issue No.2, Fall 1997.

14. Damien Caveli, "The United States of Oil", Salon.com, 19 November 2001.

15. The Great Game. Aliyev.com, http://www.aliyev.com/aliyev/fact_07.htm, 9 January 2000.

16. Bohdan Klid, Ukraine's Plans to Transport Caspian Sea and Middle East Oil to Europe, Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, University of Alberta, Edmonton, undated. See also Energy Information Administration at http://www.eia.doe.gov/ emeu/cabs/russpip.html.

17. See Richard Hottelet, "Tangled Web of an Oil Pipeline" The Christian Science Monitor, 1 May 1998.

18. PR News Wire, 1 August 1997.

19. Richard Giragosian, "Massive Kashagan Oil Strike Renews Geopolitical Offensive In Caspian", The Analyst, Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, 7 June, 2000.

Read More..

Cover-Up or Complicity?

Role of Pakistan's ISI in the September 11 Attacks

Chapter 4

As discussed in Chapter III, the US Administration has consciously used international terrorism in the pursuit of its foreign policy objectives by engaging Pakistan's ISI as a "go-between". Ironically, while Pakistan's ISI has supported and abetted international terrorism (including Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda), the Bush administration, in the wake of September 11, chose to seek the assistance of Pakistan's ISI in its "campaign against international terrorism".

Two days after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it was reported that a delegation led by the head of Pakistan's ISI, Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmed, was in Washington for high level talks at the State Department.(1)

Most US media conveyed the impression that Islamabad had put together a delegation at Washington's behest, and that the invitation to the meeting had been transmitted to the Pakistan government "after" the tragic events of September 11.

However this is not what happened.

Pakistan's chief spy, Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad,"was in the US when the attacks occurred".(2) According to the New York Times, "he happened to be [in Washington] on a regular visit of consul-tations".(3) Not a word was mentioned regarding the nature of his "business" in the US in the week prior to the terrorist attacks. According to Newsweek, he was "on a visit to Washington at the time of the attack, and, like most other visitors, is still stuck there", unable to return home because of the freeze on international airline travel.(4)

General Ahmad had in fact arrived in the US on the 4th of September, a full week before the attacks.5 Bear in mind that the purpose of his meeting at the State Department on the 13th was only made public "after" the September 11 terrorist attacks, when the Bush administration took the decision to formally seek the "cooperation" of Pakistan in its "campaign against international terrorism".

The press reports confirm that Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad had two meetings with Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, on the 12th and 13th.(6) After September 11, he also met Senator Joseph Biden, Chairman of the powerful Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.

Confirmed by several press reports, however, General Ahmad also had "a regular visit of consultations" with US officials during the week prior to September 11-i.e., meetings with his US counterparts at the CIA and the Pentagon.(7)

The nature of these routine "consultations" was not made public. Were they in any way related to the subsequent "post-September 11 consultations" pertaining to Pakistan's decision to "cooperate with Washington", which were held behind closed doors at the State Department on September 12 and 13? Was the planning of war being discussed between Pakistani and US officials? One can only speculate based on what happened later in Afghanistan.

"The ISI-Osama-Taliban Axis"

On the 9th of September, the leader of the Northern Alliance, Commander Ahmad Shah Masood, was assassinated. The Northern Alliance had informed the Bush administration that the ISI was allegedly implicated in the assassination. The Northern Alliance had confirmed in an official statement that:

A "Pakistani ISI-Osama-Taliban axis" [was responsible for] plotting the assassination by two Arab suicide bombers...."We believe that this is a triangle between Osama bin Laden, ISI, which is the intelligence section of the Pakistani army, and the Taliban."(8)
The complicity of the ISI in the "ISI-Osama-Taliban axis" was a matter of public record, confirmed by congressional transcripts and intelligence reports. (See Chapter 3.)

The Bush Administration Cooperates with Pakistan's Military-Intelligence

The Bush administration consciously took the decision in "the post-September 11 consultations" at the State Department to directly "cooperate" with Pakistan's ISI, despite its links to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban and its alleged role in the assassination of Commander Massoud, which occurred coincidentally two days before the terrorist attacks.

-----

TEXT BOX 4.1

Schedule of Pakistan's Chief Spy, Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad, Washington, 4 to 13 September 2001

4 September: Ahmad arrives in the US on an official visit.

4-9 September: He meets his US counterparts including CIA Head, George Tenet.

9 September: Assassination of General Massoud, leader of the Northern Alliance. The Official statement by the Northern Alliance points to the involvement of the ISI-Osama-Taliban axis.

11 September: Terrorist attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon.

12-13 September: Meetings between Lt. General Ahmad and Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage. Agreement on Pakistan's "collaboration" negotiated with the Bush administration.

13 September: Ahmad meets Senator Joseph Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

-----

Meanwhile, the Western media-in the face of mounting evidence-remained silent on the insidious role of Pakistan's ISI. The assassination of Massoud was mentioned, but its political significance in relation to September 11 and the subsequent decision to go to war against Afghanistan was barely touched upon. Without discussion or debate, Pakistan was heralded as a "friend" and an ally of America.

In an utterly twisted piece of logic, the US media concluded in chorus that:
US officials had sought cooperation from Pakistan [precisely] because it is the original backer of the Taliban, the hard-line Islamic leadership of Afghanistan accused by Washington of harboring bin Laden.(9)
"Patterns of Global Terrorism"

Nobody seemed to have noticed the obtrusive and unsubtle falsehoods behind the Administration's "campaign against international terrorism", with perhaps the exception of one inquisitive journalist who questioned Colin Powell at the outset of his State department briefing on Thursday September 13th:
[Does] the US see Pakistan as an ally or, as the "Patterns of Global Terrorism" pointed out, "a place where terrorist groups get training." Or is it a mixture?(10)
Colin Powell's reply was:
We have provided to the Pakistani government a specific list of things we think would be useful for them to work on with us, and we'll be discussing that list with the President of Pakistan later this after-noon.(11)
"Patterns of Global Terrorism" referred to by the journalist is a publication of the US State Department.(12) In other words, Colin Powell's evasive response at the Press Conference is refuted by official US Government documents, which confirm unequivocally that the government of President Pervez Musharraf (including Pakistan's Military and Intelligence apparatus) has links to international terrorism:
Credible reporting indicates that Pakistan is providing the Taliban with material, fuel, funding, technical assistance, and military advisers. Pakistan has not prevented large numbers of Pakistani nationals from moving into Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban. Islamabad also failed to take effective steps to curb the activities of certain madrasas, or religious schools, that serve as recruiting grounds for terrorism.(13)
Behind Close Doors at the State Department

The Bush administration sought, therefore, the "cooperation" of those (including Pakistan's ISI) who were directly supporting and abetting the terrorists. This may seem absurd, but at the same time consistent with Washington's broader strategic and economic objectives in Central Asia and the Middle East.

The meeting behind closed doors at the State Department on September 13, between Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, and Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad was shrouded in secrecy. It is noteworthy that President Bush was not even involved in these crucial negotiations: "Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage handed over [to ISI chief Mahmoud Ahmad] a list of specific steps Washington wanted Pakistan to take."(14)
After a telephone conversation between [Secretary of State Colin] Powell and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Pakistan had promised to cooperate.(15)
President George W. Bush confirmed later on September 13, that the Pakistan government had agreed "to cooperate and to participate as we hunt down those people who committed this unbelievable, despicable act on America".(16)

Pakistan's Chief Spy on Mission to Afghanistan

On September 13th, Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf promised Washington that he would send chief spy Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad to meet the Taliban and negotiate the extradition of Osama bin Laden. This decision was at Washington's behest, most probably agreed upon during the meeting between Dick Armitage and General Mahmoud at the State Department.

Pakistan's chief spy returned immediately to prepare for the delivery of a practically impossible ultimatum:
At American urging, Ahmad traveled...to Kandahar, Afghanistan. There he delivered the bluntest of demands. Turn over bin Laden without conditions, he told Taliban leader Mohammad Omar, or face certain war with the United States and its allies.(17)
Mahmoud's meetings on two separate occasions with the Taliban were reported as a "failure." Yet this "failure" to extradite Osama was part of Washington's design, providing a pretext for a military intervention which was already in the pipeline.

If Osama had been extradited, the main justification for waging a war "against international terrorism" would no longer hold. And the evidence suggests that this war had been planned well in advance of September 11 in response to broad strategic and economic objectives.

Meanwhile, senior Pentagon and State Department officials had been rushed to Islamabad to put the finishing touches on America's war plans. And on Sunday, October 7th, prior to the onslaught of the bombing of major cities in Afghanistan by the US Air Force, Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad was removed from his position as head of the ISI in what was described as a routine "reshuffling". It was later reported that he had been appointed to the powerful position of Governor of Punjab bordering India's Western frontier.

The Missing Link

In the days following Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad's removal, a report published in The Times of India, which went virtually unnoticed by the Western media, revealed the links between Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad and the presumed "ring leader" of the WTC attacks Mohammed Atta. The Times of India report constitutes "the missing link" to understanding who was behind the terrorist attacks of September 11:

While the Pakistani Inter Services Public Relations claimed that former ISI Director-General, Lt.-General Mahmoud Ahmad, sought retirement after being superseded on Monday [8 October], the day the US started bombing Afghanistan, the truth is more shocking. Top sources confirmed here on Tuesday [October 9], that the General lost his job because of the "evidence" India produced to show his links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade Center. The US authorities sought his removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 was wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen. Mahmoud. Senior government sources have confirmed that India contributed significantly to establishing the link between the money transfer and the role played by the dismissed ISI chief. While they did not provide details, they said that Indian inputs, including Sheikh's mobile phone number, helped the FBI in tracing and establishing the link.

A direct link between the ISI and the WTC attack could have enormous repercussions. The US cannot but suspect whether or not there were other senior Pakistani Army commanders who were in the know of things. Evidence of a larger conspiracy could shake US confidence in Pakistan's ability to participate in the anti-terrorism coalition.(18)

According to FBI files, Mohammed Atta was "the lead hijacker of the first jet airliner to slam into the World Trade Center and, apparently, the lead conspirator".(19)

The Times of India article was based on an official intelligence report of the Delhi government that had been transmitted through official channels to Washington. Agence France Press (AFP) confirms that:

A highly-placed government source told AFP that the "damning link" between the General and the transfer of funds to Atta was part of evidence which India has officially sent to the US "The evidence we have supplied to the US is of a much wider range and depth than just one piece of paper linking a rogue general to some misplaced act of terrorism," the source said.(20)
The information in the Indian Intelligence report regarding the money transfer by Pakistan's ISI is corroborated by the FBI-led investigation in the wake of September 11. While not mentioning the role of Pakistan's ISI, the FBI nonetheless points to a Pakistan connection and to "the people connected to Osama bin Laden" who are the "money men" behind the terrorists:

As to September 11th, federal authorities have told ABC News they have now tracked more than $100,000 from banks in Pakistan, to two banks in Florida, to accounts held by suspected hijack ring leader Mohammed Atta. As well, this morning, Time Magazine is reporting that some of that money came in the days just before the attack and can be traced directly to people connected to Osama bin Laden. It's all part of what has been a successful FBI effort so far to close in on the hijackers'high commander, the money men, the planners and the mastermind.(21)

Pakistan's Military-Intelligence Agency Behind 9/11?

The revelation by the Times of India article (confirmed by the FBI Report) has several implications. The report not only points to the links between ISI Chief General Ahmad (the presumed "Money Man") and terrorist ringleader Mohammed Atta, but it also indicates that other ISI officials might have had contacts with the terrorists. Moreover, it suggests that the September 11 attacks were not an act of "individual terrorism" organized by a single Al Qaeda cell, but rather they were part of a coordinated military-intelligence operation emanating from Pakistan's ISI.

The Times of India report also sheds light on the nature of General Ahmad's "business activities" in the US during the week prior to September 11, raising the distinct possibility of ISI contacts with Mohammed Atta in the US in the week "prior" to the attacks on the WTC, precisely at the time when General Mahmoud and his delegation were on a "regular visit of consultations" with US officials. Remember, Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad arrived in the US on the 4th of September.

Despite the fact that the FBI investigation had uncovered Pakistan's complicity in the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration was, nevertheless, determined to get the support of the Pakistani government in the "war on terrorism".

US Approved Appointee

In assessing the alleged links between the terrorists and the ISI, it should be pointed out that Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad, as head of the ISI, was a "US-approved appointee". As head of the ISI since 1999, he was in liaison with his US counterparts in the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Pentagon. One should also bear in mind that Pakistan's ISI remained, throughout the entire post-Cold War era until the present, the launch pad for CIA covert operations in the Caucasus, Central Asia and the Balkans. (See our earlier analysis on this issue.)

In other words, General Mahmoud Ahmad was serving US foreign policy interests. His dismissal on the orders of Washington was not the result of a fundamental political disagreement. Without US support channeled through the Pakistani ISI, the Taliban would not have been able to form a government in 1996. Jane Defense Weekly confirms in this regard that "half of Taliban manpower and equipment originate[d] in Pakistan under the ISI," which in turn was supported by the US.(22)

Moreover, the assassination of the leader of the Northern Alliance, General Ahmad Shah Masood,-in which the ISI is alleged to have been implicated-was not at all in contradiction with US foreign policy objectives. Since the late 1980s, the US had consistently sought to sidetrack and weaken Masood, who was perceived as a nationalist reformer, by providing support to both to the Taliban and the Hezb-I-Islami group led by Gulbuddin Hektmayar against Masood. Moreover, Masood was supported by Moscow.

After his assassination, which broadly served US interests, the Northern Alliance became fragmented into different factions. Had Masood not been assassinated, he would have become the head of the post-Taliban government formed in the wake of the US bombings of Afghanistan.

Corroborated by Congressional Transcripts

Corroborated by the House of Representatives International Relations Committee, US support funnelled through the ISI to the Taliban and Osama bin Laden has been a consistent policy of the US Administration since the end of the Cold War. According to Rep. Dana Rohrbacher:

...[T]he United States has been part and parcel to supporting the Taliban all along, and still is, let me add.... You have a military government [of President Musharraf] in Pakistan now that is arming the Taliban to the teeth …. Let me note that [US] aid has always gone to Taliban areas.... We have been supporting the Taliban, because all our aid goes to the Taliban areas. And when people from the outside try to put aid into areas not controlled by the Taliban, they are thwarted by our own State Department.... At that same moment, Pakistan initiated a major resupply effort, which eventually saw the defeat, and caused the defeat of almost all of the anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan.(23)

Cover-up and Complicity?

The existence of an "ISI-Osama-Taliban axis" is a matter of public record. The links between the ISI and agencies of the US Government, including the CIA, are also a matter of public record. Pakistan's ISI has been used by successive US Administrations as a "go-between". Pakistan's military-intelligence apparatus constitutes the core institutional support to both Osama's Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Without this institutional support, there would be no Taliban government in Kabul. In turn, without the unbending support of the US Government, there would be no powerful military-intelligence apparatus in Pakistan.

Senior officials in the State Department were fully cognizant of General Mahmoud Ahmad's role. In the wake of September 11, the Bush administration consciously sought the "cooperation" of the ISI which had been aiding and abetting Osama bin Laden and the Taliban.

The Bush administration's relations with Pakistan's ISI-includ-ing its "consultations"with General Mahmoud Ahmad in the week prior to September 11-raise the issue of "cover-up" as well as "complicity". While Ahmad was talking to US officials at the CIA and the Pentagon, the ISI allegedly was in contact with the September 11 terrorists.

According to the Indian government intelligence report (referred to in the Times of India), the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks had links to Pakistan's ISI, which in turn has links to agencies of the US Government. What this suggests is that key individuals within the US military-intelligence establishment might have known about the ISI contacts with the September 11 terrorist "ring leader" Mohammed Atta and failed to act.

Whether this amounts to complicity on the part of the Bush administration remains to be firmly established. The least one can expect at this stage is an inquiry. But the Bush administration refuses to investigate these ISI links, as well as the money trail, not to mention the precise circumstances of the September 11 attacks.

What is crystal clear, however, is that this war is not a "campaign against international terrorism". It is a war of conquest with devastating consequences for the future of humanity. And the American people have been consciously and deliberately deceived by their government.

Notes:

1. The Guardian, London, 15 September 2001.

2. Reuters, 13 September 2001.

3. The New York Times, 13 September 2001.

4. Newsweek, 14 September 2001.

5. The Daily Telegraph. London, 14 September 2001.

6. The New York Times, September 13th, 2001, confirms the meeting on the 12th of September 2001.

7. The New York Times, 13 September 2001.

8. The Northern Alliance's statement was released on 14 September 2001, quoted in Reuters, 15 September 2001.

9. Reuters, 13 September 2001, emphasis added.

10. Journalist's question to Secretary of State Colin Powell, State Department Briefing, Washington DC, 13 September 2001.

11. Ibid.

12. See http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/.

13. US State Department, "Patterns of Global Terrorism", State Department, http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000, Washington, DC, 2000.

14. Reuters, 13 September 2001.

15. Ibid.

16. Remarks in a telephone conversation with New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and New York Governor George Pataki and an exchange with reporters, Presidential Papers, 13 September 2001.

17. The Washington Post, 23 September 2001.

18. The Times of India, Delhi, 9 October 2001.

19. The Weekly Standard, Vol. 7, No. 7, October 2001.

20. AFP, 10 October 2001.

21. Statement of Brian Ross reporting on information conveyed to him by the FBI, ABC News, This Week, September 30, 2001.

22. Quoted in the Christian Science Monitor, 3 September 1998.

23. US House of Representatives: Statement by Rep. Dana Rohrbacher, Hearing of The House International Relations Committee on "Global Terrorism And South Asia", Washington, DC, July 12, 2000.

Read More..