--- Begin Message ---
An interesting deconstruction of the 'bombing for oil'
theory going around.
-Markian Beley.
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2059487
Pipe Dreams
The origin of the "bombing-Afghanistan-for-oil-pipelines" theory.
By Seth Stevenson
Posted Thursday, December 6, 2001, at 11:32 AM PT
A theory making the rounds on the Internet, on the airwaves, and in the
press claims that the bombing of the Taliban has nothing to do with a "war
on terrorism" but everything to do with the oil pipeline the West wants to
build through Afghanistan. Where did this theory start, and how did it
spread?
The California energy company Unocal seriously pursued building an
Afghanistan pipeline in the 1990s, but back then the theorists, such as this
Middle East specialist in 1998, argued that the West was propping up the
Taliban in hopes that they would cooperate on building a pipeline. On March
8, 2001, a think-tanker and former CIA analyst noted in a New York Times
op-ed that "[i]n 1996, it seemed possible that American-built gas and oil
pipelines from Central Asia could run through an Afghanistan ruled by one
leader. Cruelty to women aside, we did not condemn the Taliban juggernaut
rolling across the country."
The beauty of conspiracy theories is that even the most contradictory
evidence can be folded into a new conspiracy theory. For example, after the
events of Sept. 11, the pipeline conspiracy theorists spun 180 degrees
from .
We're supporting the Taliban so we can build a pipeline while we pretend we
don't care about their links to terrorism (and, to a lesser degree, their
cruelty to women).
to .
We're bombing the Taliban so we can build a pipeline while we pretend we
care about their links to terrorism (and, to a lesser degree, their cruelty
to women).
After Arafat: Who's ready to replace him?
Tribunals Will Help the Terrorists
Unraveling the Afghan Oil Conspiracy Theory
The turnaround can be tracked within a single news agency. On Oct. 7 of this
year, right before the U.S. bombing began, Agence France-Presse wrote up the
old theory: "Keen to see Afghanistan under strong central rule to allow a
US-led group to build a multi-billion-dollar oil and gas pipeline,
Washington urged key allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to back the militia's
bid for power in 1996." Just four days later, AFP wrote that "experts say
the end of the Islamic militia [the Taliban] could spell the start of more
lucrative opportunities for Western oil companies."
Nearly all sites pushing the newer theory point to two pieces of evidence:
1) This U.S. Department of Energy information page on Afghanistan, updated
September 2001, which espouses the pipeline idea but says Afghanistan is too
chaotic for it to work. 2) This 1998 testimony by a Unocal vice president to
the House Committee on International Relations, in which he states that a
pipeline will never be built without a stable Afghan government in place.
How did the new theory spread? After the Sept. 11 attacks, no one says
anything oil-related for a respectable mourning period. Then, in the cover
story of its Sept. 21-27 issue, L.A. Weekly makes the case that "it's the
oil, stupid." The piece doesn't mention the pipeline specifically, but soon
after, someone else does. On Sept. 25, the Village Voice's James Ridgeway
and Camila E. Fard write that the 9/11 terrorist attack "provides Washington
with an extraordinary opportunity" to overthrow the Taliban and build a
pipeline. Ridgeway fails to make the direct link to Unocal, though. On Oct.
1, we see the whole theory come together on the Web site of the Independent
Media Center. This article links to both the Unocal testimony and the DOE
page and says they "leave little doubt as to the reasons behind Washington's
desire to replace the Taliban government." After this, the floodgates open.
The theory never evolves much-it just gets passed around.
Oct. 5: An India-based writer for the Inter Press Service says Bush's
"coalition against terrorism" is "the first opportunity that has any chance
of making UNOCAL's wish come true." The story is reprinted the following day
in the Asia Times.
Oct. 10: The Village Voice's Ridgeway makes his claim in stronger terms but
still doesn't mention Unocal.
Oct. 11: A Russian TV commentator says oil is the real reason for the war.
In a transcript from Russia's Ren TV, the commentator refers to Unocal.
Oct. 12: An essay on TomPaine.com and another by cartoonist Ted Rall both
join the chorus.
Oct. 13: The Hindu, an Indian national newspaper, asserts that the pipeline,
not terrorism, is driving the U.S. bombing. The Hindu quotes the DOE page
and adds the point that both President Bush and Vice President Cheney are
"intimately connected with the U.S. oil industry."
Oct. 14: The Washington Times reports that a Taliban ambassador says the war
is more oil than Osama. Also, the International Action Center (an
anti-militarism site) runs the Unocal theory.
Oct. 15: An essay at the libertarian site LewRockwell.com makes the Unocal
case. The following day it's reprinted by Russia's Pravda and posted in a
Yahoo! newsgroup.
Oct. 19: Green Party USA gets in on the fun.
Oct. 23: Britain's Guardian quotes the Unocal testimony and says that while
the United States is in part fighting terrorism, it "would be naive to
believe that this is all it is doing." Pakistan's Dawn reprints the essay
two days later.
Oct. 24: The Guardian strikes again, writing that any pipeline would require
the creation of a stable government and that "[t]his, it can be argued, is
precisely what Washington is now trying to do."
Oct. 25: Britain's Channel 4 says the pipeline is "an important subtext" to
the war.
Oct. 29: The cover story of the Britain's Daily Mirror screams, "This War Is
a Fraud." Meanwhile, the BBC says the pipeline theory is in the air and
recaps its basic points, but then dismantles it.
The pipeline theory has continued to bounce around, showing up on every
"progressive" Web site out there. It ran in the Syrian daily Tishrin on Nov.
29, from which it was picked up on Dec. 2 by Pakistan's Frontier Post. It
may never die.
Why does the bombing-for-pipelines theory hold such appeal? For the same
reason the supporting-the-Taliban-for-pipelines theory attracted so many:
There's evidence that points in that direction. Unocal did want to build a
pipeline through Afghanistan and did cozy up to the Taliban. Bush and Cheney
do have ties to big oil. But theories like these are ridiculously
reductionist. Their authors don't try to argue conclusions from
evidence-they decide on conclusions first, then hunt for justification.
Also, many thinkers are comfortable with the conditioned response that dates
back to Ida Tarbell vs. Standard Oil: When in Doubt, Blame Oil First.
What's absurd about the pipeline theory is how thoroughly it discounts the
obvious reason the United States set the bombers loose on Afghanistan:
Terrorists headquartered in Afghanistan attacked America's financial and
military centers, killing 4,000 people, and then took credit for it.
Nope-must be the pipeline.
Sinatra Rat Pack Gift Set: � -
Amazon.com
Seth Stevenson shops for Slate.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
<FONT COLOR="#000099">Promise to Quit
Nicotrol will help
</FONT><A HREF="http://us.click.yahoo.com/5vN8tD/AqSDAA/ySSFAA/TySplB/TM";><B>Click
Here!</B></A>
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
==============================================
SPY NEWS is OSINT newsletter
and discussion list associated to
Mario's Cyberspace Station
http://mprofaca.cro.net/mainmenu.html
==============================================
*** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107, this material is distributed
without profit to SPYNEWS eGroup members
who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information for non-profit research
and educational purposes only.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
-----------------------------------------------
SPY NEWS home page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/spynews
To change your subscription mode to Daily Digest
(one message a day) send a blank message:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please note that replying to THIS e-mail
will not remove you from the mailing list.
To unsubscribe SPYNEWS send a blank message:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mario Profaca, independent journalist,
SPY NEWS eGroup list owner, editor
& moderator, is a member of of the
Committee of Concerned Journalists,
an initiative administered through
the offices of the Project for
Excellence in Journalism in Washington, D.C.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--- End Message ---
