If asked, Canada would help the Afghan army defend a proposed $7.6-billion U.S.-backed natural gas pipeline running from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan, to Pakistan and India.
We've heard about this pipeline before. U.S. Unocal and Bridas of Argentina were both bidding on it with the Taliban when the Taliban pulled out of the negotiations just one month before the U.S. invaded Afghanistan. Afghan President Karzai, who either was or wasn't previously a Unocal employee, signed an agreement with the Turkman president this April to begin construction of the pipeline in 2010. Named TAPI after the four nations involved, it will run straight through Kandahar where Canadian troops are slated to stay till at least 2011.
Energy economist John Foster has written a report for the Canadian Council of Policy Alternatives, questioning the motives of the countries involved and outlining three reasons why the US wants it :
1) To limit Russia's influence in the region. Turkmanistan currently exports nearly all its gas to Russia.
2) To isolate Iran and their proposed rival pipeline which would run from Iran to India and Pakistan.
3) To forge links with India that would isolate India from China, who have already begun their gas pipeline from Turkmenistan east through Kazakhstan to China.
1) To limit Russia's influence in the region. Turkmanistan currently exports nearly all its gas to Russia.
2) To isolate Iran and their proposed rival pipeline which would run from Iran to India and Pakistan.
3) To forge links with India that would isolate India from China, who have already begun their gas pipeline from Turkmenistan east through Kazakhstan to China.
Is this why Canada is in Afghanistan?
From a Council of Foreign Relations panel discussion in 2007, journalist Steve LeVine :
"US policy is pipeline-driven within a strategy… to make this area a pro-western swath of territory between Russia and Iran, driven by the establishment of an independent economic channel. Everything else is really – I hate to call it window-dressing – but it’s secondary to that."
"US policy is pipeline-driven within a strategy… to make this area a pro-western swath of territory between Russia and Iran, driven by the establishment of an independent economic channel. Everything else is really – I hate to call it window-dressing – but it’s secondary to that."
G&M : "Liberal Senator Colin Kenny - chairman of the Senate's national security and defence committee - said Canada has similar interests in the global energy market as the United States, and should not shy away from supporting U.S. geopolitical objectives. "I don't think we would be serving Canadian interests if we were ignoring American interests," he said."
What ever happened to little girls going to school, bringing democracy to Afghanistan, standing up for NATO ...
John Foster says he wrote his report to foster debate about pipeline politics in the absence of any official statement from the Canadian government or discussion in the national media :
A very interesting read.
No comments:
Post a Comment