New Zealand troops have been in Afghanistan continuously for the past six years. It seems likely that they will be there for at least another year, if not considerably longer. New Zealand is there for one reason: to curry the favour of the United States Government. The US is interested in Afghanistan because of its strategic location. Afghanistan is the best option for building a massive natural gas pipeline to transit the resources of Central Asia to the world. Afghanistan is also militarily strategic for the US ? located immediately next door to the US?s greatest enemy, Iran, as well as bounded by former Soviet states that it would like to control for access to their energy resources. The US government is not shy about its goals; this from a US Congressional enquiry:
"Stated U.S. 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 Iran; and denying Iran dangerous leverage over the Central Asian economies."1
The United States has some 23,000 troops in Afghanistan. More than 35,000 troops make up the NATO-led International Security and Assistance Force, with contributions from 37 nations. There are troops from Albania, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom and of course, the USA.
The five countries that make up Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, attained their independence in 1991, and have once again captured worldwide attention due to the phenomenal reserves of oil and natural gas located in the region. The best access to these reserves is through Afghanistan.
In late May 2002, the leaders of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan agreed to construct a USD$2 billion pipeline to bring gas from Central Asia to the sub-continent. Half of the 1800-kilometer-long pipeline will pass through Afghan territory to supply gas from Dawlatabad city of Turkmenistan to the Gawadar Port of Pakistan. The trans-Afghanistan pipeline will continue from the Gawadar Port of Pakistan and to India where the gas will then be transferred to Bangkok through ships.2
The pipeline project is at least a decade old, originally initiated by US multination oil corporation, UNOCAL, but the corporation abandoned the project in 1999 due to pressure over the Taliban's human rights abuses. The strongest objection against the company was a 120-page protest letter by 30 US-based organisations on Dec 10, 1998, submitted to legal officials in California.3
Now, according to insiders, there are strong indications UNOCAL could be favoured by Afghan officials in the government of President Hamid Karzai to return back to the development of the trans-Afghan pipeline venture - though the company's role is not exactly clear in the Asian Development Bank-led project.
The Asian Development Bank has brokered the pipeline project from Turkmenistan since 2002. A technical assistance report conducted in 2004 summarises what the bank thinks needs to happen in Afghanistan for the pipeline to proceed: "...the establishment of a favorable commercial, institutional, legal, and regulatory framework with streamlined cross-border procedures. Priority tasks ahead include determining an optimal sequence of physical investments, introducing appropriate legislative and regulatory measures, and identifying effective instruments for cost recovery."4
This rhetoric is the same old story from the Bank: "favourable procedures" is just euphemism for the imposition of Western-style government, and "cost recovery" simply means the privatisation and corporatisation of Afghani resources.
No doubt Afghan president Hamid Karzai is keen to ensure that the pipeline stays on the table. He believes that the project could generate $100-$300 million per year in transit fees for Afghanistan, and no doubt he would get some significant cut.5 As usual, US-based multinational oil companies would be the big winners - and this is why they are keen to keep the US military in the country and engaged in extending the influence of Hamid Karzai throughout Afghanistan. He is the US-installed puppet and a willing agent of US oil interests.
However, in the meantime, a $7 billion scheme to pipe natural gas to India and Pakistan from offshore Iran is also gaining momentum. Certainly, the US is not in favour of such an option, and we will likely see further anti-Iranian rhetoric, and possibly military action, to limit Iranian control of Central Asian resources.6
References
1. US Interests in the Central Asian Republics. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the Committee on International relations, House of Representatives, One hundred fifth Congress, Second Session, Feb 12, 1998
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0.HTM
2. Afghan pipeline given go-ahead BBC News, Business Section, 30 May 2002,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2017044.stm
3. Renewed hope for Afghan pipeline, by Raouf Liwal, Asia Times. 22 Nov 2004.
http://www.energybulletin.net/3291.htm
4. Technical assistance to the Islamic republic of Afghanistan for cross-border trade and transport facilitation, Asian Development Bank TAR: AFG 36292, December 2004
5. Afghanistan Fact Sheet, Country Analysis Sheets, Energy Information Agency, Department of Energy, June 2004,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html
6. 'Gas Pipeline Race', ADB Review. October 2005
http://www.adb.org/Documents/Periodicals/ADB_Review/2005/vol37-5/default.asp
Other sources
Canada in Afghanistan: Top Ten Under-reported Facts by Media Alliance for New Activism Global Research, March 18, 2006
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MED20060318&articleId=2125