Afghanistan and the new great game

[Cheetah786]

Prized pipeline route could explain West's stubborn interest in poor, remote land

Why is Afghanistan so important?

A glance at a map and a little knowledge of the region suggest that the real reasons for Western military involvement may be largely hidden.

Afghanistan is adjacent to Middle Eastern countries that are rich in oil and natural gas. And though Afghanistan may have little petroleum itself, it borders both Iran and Turkmenistan, countries with the second and third largest natural gas reserves in the world. (Russia is first.)

Turkmenistan is the country nobody talks about. Its huge reserves of natural gas can only get to market through pipelines. Until 1991, it was part of the Soviet Union and its gas flowed only north through Soviet pipelines. Now the Russians plan a new pipeline north. The Chinese are building a new pipeline east. The U.S. is pushing for "multiple oil and gas export routes." High-level Russian, Chinese and American delegations visit Turkmenistan frequently to discuss energy. The U.S. even has a special envoy for Eurasian energy diplomacy.

Rivalry for pipeline routes and energy resources reflects competition for power and control in the region. Pipelines are important today in the same way that railway building was important in the 19th century. They connect trading partners and influence the regional balance of power. Afghanistan is a strategic piece of real estate in the geopolitical struggle for power and dominance in the region.

Since the 1990s, Washington has promoted a natural gas pipeline south through Afghanistan. The route would pass through Kandahar province. In 2007, Richard Boucher, U.S. assistant secretary of state, said: "One of our goals is to stabilize Afghanistan," and to link South and Central Asia "so that energy can flow to the south." Oil and gas have motivated U.S. involvement in the Middle East for decades. Unwittingly or willingly, Canadian forces are supporting American goals.

The proposed pipeline is called TAPI, after the initials of the four participating countries (Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India). Eleven high-level planning meetings have been held during the past seven years, with Asian Development Bank sponsorship and multilateral support (including Canada's). Construction is planned to start next year.

The pipeline project was documented at three donor conferences on Afghanistan in the past three years and is referenced in the 2008 Afghan Development Plan. Canada was represented at these conferences at the ministerial level. Thus, our leaders must know. Yet they avoid discussion of the planned pipeline through Afghanistan.

The 2008 Manley Report, a foundation for extending the Canadian mission to 2011, ignored energy issues. It talked about Afghanistan as if it were an island, albeit with a porous Pakistani border. Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he "will withdraw the bulk of the military forces" in 2011. The remaining troops will focus mostly on "reconstruction and development." Does that include the pipeline?

Pipeline rivalry is slightly more visible in Europe. Ukraine is the main gateway for gas from Russia to Europe. The United States has pushed for alternate pipelines and encouraged European countries to diversify their sources of supply. Recently built pipelines for oil and gas originate in Azerbaijan and extend through Georgia to Turkey. They are the jewels in the crown of U.S. strategy to bypass Russia and Iran.

The rivalry continues with plans for new gas pipelines to Europe from Russia and the Caspian region. The Russians plan South Stream – a pipeline under the Black Sea to Bulgaria. The European Union and U.S. are backing a pipeline called Nabucco that would supply gas to Europe via Turkey. Nabucco would get some gas from Azerbaijan, but that country doesn't have enough. Additional supply could come from Turkmenistan, but Russia is blocking a link across the Caspian Sea. Iran offers another source, but the U.S. is blocking the use of Iranian gas.

Meanwhile, Iran is planning a pipeline to deliver gas east to Pakistan and India. Pakistan has agreed in principle, but India has yet to do so. It's an alternative to the long-planned, U.S.-supported pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan and India.

A very big game is underway, with geopolitics intruding everywhere. U.S. journalist Steven LeVine describes American policy in the region as "pipeline-driven." Other countries are pushing for pipeline routes, too. The energy game remains largely hidden; the focus is on humanitarian, development and national security concerns. In Canada, Afghanistan has been avoided in the past two elections.

With the U.S. surge underway and the British ambassador to Washington predicting a decades-long commitment, it's reasonable to ask: Why are the U.S. and NATO in Afghanistan? Could the motivation be power, a permanent military bridgehead, access to energy resources?

Militarizing energy has a high price in dollars, lives and morality. There are long-term consequences for everyone. Canadian voters want to know: Why is Afghanistan so important?

John Foster is an energy economist and author of "A Pipeline Through A Troubled Land – Afghanistan, Canada, and the New Great Energy Game," published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. It is avaialble online at www.policyalternatives.ca/documents/National_Office_Pubs/2008/A_Pipeline_Through_a_Troubled_Land.pdf

http://img29.imageshack.us/i/450ccpamap080620.jpg/

 

[Cheetah786]

A U.S-backed pipeline would be an inviting target for the Taliban and al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan, and the planned project would run directly through Kandahar, the volatile region that Canada has promised to defend through 2011.
Afghanistan and three other countries agreed in April to build a US$7.6-billion natural gas pipeline starting in 2010 that would deliver gas from energy-rich Turkmenistan to energy-hungry Pakistan and India.
The Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline is strongly supported by the U.S. because it would block a competing pipeline from Iran that would bring oil to India and Pakistan. It would also reduce Russia's dominance of the energy sector in Central Asia.

A U.S-backed pipeline -- more than 500 kilometres of it -- in Afghanistan would be an inviting target for Taliban and al Qaeda operatives there. It would be very difficult to defend.


But Ottawa and the military have been quiet about what could be one of the biggest changes to the operational paradigm in Kandahar, despite plans for such a pipeline going back a decade.


Report asks for answers


Energy economist John Foster wrote a report for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives that was released Thursday, in which he called for the government to make clear its policy with respects to the pipeline.


The Canadian government has spent billions on Afghanistan and spent massive political capital convincing the public of the need to stay in the war-torn country, he said in the report. So why no mention of the pipeline?


After the report was released to the public, a senior government official confirmed to the Globe and Mail that the Canadian Forces would support the Afghan National Army in providing security if the Afghanistan government asks for help.


"How did Canada get in this situation?" Foster said in an interview with CTV.ca. "I would say, unwittingly."


"What I see in the future is that Canada could be trapped, and drawn into defending a pipeline," he said.


The Afghan government has made assurances that the gas route would be clear of landmines and Taliban within two years.


It's clear the pipeline would be a boon for Afghanistan's economy. It is estimated the project would bring in $160 million annually for the country's coffers -- a considerable sum for the impoverished country.


The project would also create much needed construction-related jobs. The pipeline could even help stabilize the region as it could force co-operation between the Afghan, Pakistani and Indian governments. Clearly, there is a strong argument that the defence of the pipeline should be an essential part of the Canadian mission.

"The bad news is that ... the pipeline will follow the main highway from Herat to Kandahar, so the route would slap through the heart of the insurgency," Foster said. "Without peace, the pipeline would be a massive target."


But besides the tactical changes that may have to be made on the ground, Foster argued that Canada has to make a larger strategic decision about where it belongs in the new "Great Energy Game."


"There's no debate about this yet in Canada," he said.


The Great Energy Game



The new 'Great Energy Game" -- the original Great Game was the 19th Century battle between Britain and Russia for influence in Central Asia -- is the term for the geopolitics behind the efforts of the world's most economically powerful nations to secure a stable and long-term supply of energy.


"Afghanistan is a key part of the pipeline politics of Central Asia," Foster said. "What we don't know is where does Canada stands in regards to what is called the 'new Great Game.'"


"Does Canada support (U.S. objectives) or what?" he asked.


The U.S. has a measure of control over or access to about 50 per cent of the world's oil reserves. It has backed the TAPI proposal for over a decade. Two U.S. administrations -- Bill Clinton's and George W. Bush's -- negotiated with the Taliban on the project.


In a twist that has spawned numerous conspiracy theories, negotiations with the Taliban broke down in August 2001 -- one month before the Sept. 11 attacks.


The U.S. has significant interest in Central Asia, not just over the war on terrorism, but energy too.


At a 2006 NATO summit meeting, the U.S. proposed that NATO start guarding oil pipelines and sea lanes.


Furthermore, the U.S. also proposed to amend NATO article V commitment (an attack on one nation is an attack on all) to include energy resources. That illustrates how seriously the U.S. takes its commitment to securing its energy supply.


That is not expected to change in the future, as both U.S. presidential nominees, have made securing energy a key part of their platforms.


The Conservative's Canada First Defence Strategy, released Thursday evening, makes no overt mention of defending Canada's energy resources or those of its allies overseas.


It does say that Canada will continue to "support and attribute" NATO.

With respects to the pipeline, the new game is a race between the TAPI line and the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) line.

Foster said India and Pakistan are "backing both horses" -- essentially waiting until the final hurdle to see which of the pipelines proceeds.

For Pakistan and India, the Iranian pipeline -- which would pass to the south of Afghanistan -- would be more stable than the Afghanistan one, given the current strife. But dealing with Iran would draw the ire of the U.S. government.
CTV.ca | Canadians could be defending Afghan gas pipeline
Canada does not have the luxury of hoping a pipeline bypasses Kandahar.
If TAPI is built, Foster asks if Canada will be in Afghanistan defending the project over its 50-year lifespan.