posted on October 1, 2001 02:20:35 AM new
In testimony before the house subcommittee on international relations in 1998 the head man of Unesco provides some insight to the scope of factors which may influence U.S. decision making as regards the middle east today.
It's straight out of the record but he concludes with:
"The Central Asia and Caspian region is blessed with abundant oil and gas that can enhance the lives of the region's residents and provide energy for growth for Europe and Asia.
The impact of these resources on U.S. commercial interests and U.S. foreign policy is also significant and intertwined. Without peaceful settlement of conflicts within 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 United Nations-led peace process in Afghanistan.
U.S. assistance in developing these new economies will be crucial to business' success. We encourage strong technical assistance programs throughout the region. We also urge repeal or removal of Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act. This section unfairly restricts U.S. government assistance to the government of Azerbaijan and limits U.S. influence in the region.
Developing cost-effective, profitable and efficient export routes for Central Asia resources is a formidable, but not impossible, task. It has been accomplished before. A commercial corridor, a "new" Silk Road, can link the Central Asia supply with the demand -- once again making Central Asia the crossroads between Europe and Asia."
Does this imply that a need to assure the construction of access pipelines to oil in Afganistan might outweigh any considerations of war on terrorism, or retribution, or justice?
posted on October 1, 2001 03:56:00 AM newDoes this imply that a need to assure the construction of access pipelines to oil in Afganistan might outweigh any considerations of war on terrorism, or retribution, or justice?
I don't think so. One thing the article stresses is the need for stability in the region. Not going to be much stability until / unless the threat is removed.
Not that the "Corporate Oil Lust" doesn't make the "solution" even harder. But the oil companies can't / won't go in and spend tons of money while things are up in the air.
posted on October 1, 2001 04:33:02 AM new
I liked the phrase.
I do think that stability there will be achieved much more reliably through a course of reasoned diplomatic action. It isn't all about Afganistan, the entire region will react in response to what the US does. Now with Powell's tact holding sway (for the time being---he's actually being called a traitor without use of the term by neocon [new-age hard right conservative] members of bush's core advisorial crew) doesn't it seem likely that the overriding consideration is interest in oil?
posted on October 1, 2001 12:16:25 PM new
Actually, I think the overriding consideration is not to let this turn into WWIII, and have 100 million causulties. Where's the profit in that? Sure, oil is a consideration, but lets face it, they want to sell the oil as bad as we want to buy it.
