Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
James Wan & Alice Barnes
EDGE Fall 2004
Professor Lusignan
US involvement in world politics: Venezuela and Afghanistan
Introduction
In this paper we will seek to investigate official US interference in the politics and
policies of selected foreign countries. We have chosen to research this topic by focusing on
two main case studies. The first case study we will look at will be Venezuela. In our
research on Venezuela we will assess US involvement in the series of events that led up to
the recent general election and the tensions between President Hugo Chavez and the US
government. We will investigate the allegations against the US government of covertly
supporting the opposition to President Chavez and of generally trying to overthrow the
President and interfere in Venezuelan politics. In order to provide support for the
allegations against the US government we will be highlight some examples of previous US
intervention in the politics of various other South American and Latin American countries.
The other country we will analyse is Afghanistan and in our research on Afghanistan we
will also look at certain other key countries involved in the dispute over the oil of the
Caspian region. We have chosen these two countries as our case studies because we can
contrast the very different approaches of the US government to the two areas. Although in
both cases there is substantial evidence that the US government has acted to influence the
Wan & Barnes 2
politics of a country in order benefit the US, there are very clear differences in the tactics
used by the US in each example.
In Venezuela the US interference has been far more covert than it has been in
Afghanistan. An obvious difference between the two situations is that the US has actually
gone so far as to use military force to overthrow the Taliban government of Afghanistan
whereas in Venezuela it has been restricted to using less blatant methods to try to depose
President Chavez. What does not appear to change however is the fact that the US
government has attempted to hide the real reasons why they have sought to alter the
politics of these foreign countries. Also, another constant factor in many US interventions
in worldwide democracy, oil, is hugely important in both of these cases. In this paper we
will endeavour to uncover the truth behind the actions of the US government; why they
officially say that it is necessary for them to take action and the real reasons why they have
done so. We will also seek to identify the factors that enable the US to behave in such a
manner, for example, how the vast majority of mainstream US media works as a tool for
the government rather than actually reporting the truth and, how the US government uses
propaganda to cloud the vision of the US people.
Firstly we will closely examine the Venezuelan situation, the background of US-
South/Latin American relations, the policies of President Chavez and why they should
concern the US government, the allegations of US support for the opposition party and
general attempts to disrupt Chavez’s government and, the US media’s coverage of events.
Following this we will turn our attention to the Caspian region and primarily Afghanistan,
Wan & Barnes 3
and seek to draw many comparisons and highlight some important contrasts between the
two areas.
I would like to add at this time the acknowledgement that the US is by no means
alone in the behaviour of meddling in other countries’ affairs. The UK, France, Germany
and Spain among others are also guilty of interference however, in this investigation we
have chosen to focus our attention solely on the US.
Examples of US interference in South/Latin American countries
Unsurprisingly the US government denies any undercover, underhand attempts to
influence Venezuelan politics. President Chavez is convinced that the US government is
trying to orchestrate his downfall and although he claims he has evidence nothing has been
produced as yet. The lack of concrete evidence of any dubious US involvement in
Venezuela should not, however, be viewed as proof of the US’s innocence. The US
government has a track record of interfering in the politics of various other South/Latin
American countries. Tellingly, in many of the cases that I will now highlight not only did
the US censor and manipulate the media coverage of events to hide the real truth, but also,
they often denied any wrongdoing and distorted the facts of what actually occurred. The
three cases I will look at briefly are Guatemala, Panama and, Nicaragua. Although these
cases are not directly related to the events in Venezuela they do highlight the US’s attitude
towards the governments of South/Latin American countries and how they believe they can
treat their democratically elected leaders.
Wan & Barnes 4
Guatemala
In 1954 the US provided financial aid and weapons to the Guatemalan army to
enable them to overthrow then president Colonel Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán. The US did not
agree with Guzmán’s policies, which included the redistribution of land belonging to the
United Fruit Company. The United Fruit Company monopolised the country’s banana
exports and was ultimately a law unto itself. Why should the government of Guatemala’s
attempts to disrupt The United Fruit Company’s dominance concern the US? Perhaps
because, “Secretary of State John Foster Dulles' law firm had prepared United Fruit's
contracts with Guatemala; his brother, CIA Director Allen Dulles, belonged to United
Fruit's law firm; John Moors Cabot, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American
Affairs, was the brother of a former United Fruit president and, President Eisenhower's
personal secretary was married to the head of United Fruit's Public Relations
Department.”[ThirdWorldTraveller]. Although, of course, it is not possible to prove that
these connections influence the US behaviour the fact remains that the US supported a
military coup, which succeeded in overthrowing a democratically elected president.
Panama
In December 1989 the US government launched a military attack on Panama.
Several hundred civilians were killed and countless more were left homeless. The US
claimed that this military action was necessary to remove from power Panamanian leader
General Manual Noriega and bring him to the US to stand trial on drug trafficking charges.
The actual motivation behind the US invasion was “the destruction of the Panamanian
Wan & Barnes 5
Defense Forces which, under Noriega, had grown more nationalistic and less responsive to
US interests” (TheWinds). The US not only sought to hide the real reason behind the
attack but also the true nature of what took place, to ensure this they enforced
“unprecedented press control in Panama where all forms of media were shut down,
newspapers, radio and television.”(TheWinds). The invasion of Panama was by no means
the first instance of US interference in Panamanian political affairs. Indeed General
Noriega was an employee of the CIA before he became the leader of Panama, with full US
backing, and he was, in fact, still on the CIA payroll for the first 3 years of his leadership.
(Hinson) The US government’s cover-up of their behaviour in this example was, in part,
made possible by their control of the US media which “was happy to display the distorted
picture which the powerful interests behind the scene dictated.”(TheWinds)
Nicaragua
Over a period of years the US government provided huge financially support for
the contras in Nicaragua. The contras were a force officially known as the Nicaraguan
Democratic Force who opposed the then government. They used brutal and destructive
tactics to disrupt the government and terrorise the people of Nicaragua. The US supported
their cause, as they did not like the so-called Marxist policies of the ruling party. The US
was accused of altering the outcome of the Nicaraguan election by offering voters $40 for
voting for the US backed candidate (WakeUp). The US’s behaviour in Nicaragua was
condemned by The World Court who ruled that “the US, by training, arming, equipping,
financing and supplying the contra forces…and aiding military and paramilitary activities
Wan & Barnes 6
against Nicaragua, has acted…in breach of its obligation under customary international law
not to intervene in the affairs of another state.” (WakeUp) Crucially for our investigation,
the US’s behaviour was described by critics as a “blueprint for successful US intervention
in the Third World” (WakeUp). This is an extremely significant quote because it highlights
the difference between the US tactics in Venezuela and Afghanistan. The US cannot use
such extreme measures in Venezuela as it used in Nicaragua and Afghanistan partly, as
will be explained later, because Venezuela is not a Third World country
These three examples were intended to show a history of US interference in other
countries’ affairs. Numerous other examples of US activity in this area could have been
chosen, for example Honduras and El Salvador. Based on this evidence it does not seem at
all inconceivable that the US could have intervened in Venezuelan affairs.
Chavez’s policies that meet with US disapproval
President Hugo Chavez
Since his election in 1998 with an unprecedented 57% of the vote President Chavez
has continually frustrated the US government with his policies. He has spoken out against
the US on a number of crucial issues including free trade and oil. He also maintains a close
friendship with the Cuban leader Fidel Castro and has sought to create a stronger
Wan & Barnes 7
allegiance between their countries. Obviously the US government does not wish to see that
happen as any such union could prove damaging to US trade interests in the area.
One example of Chavez’s nationalistic stance can be found in his position on the
Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), a proposal to create the world’s largest trading
zone. Chavez claims that the FTAA would only benefit the US and he called on the other
countries of the Americas to join forces as “Only united can we break the chains that
oppress us.” Chavez claims the FTAA is the latest incarnation of economic "colonialism"
and vows to put any deal to a popular vote (Olson). Venezuela’s chief FTAA negotiator
Victor Alvarez highlighted the hypocrisy of the US in that “while the Bush Administration
was preaching free trade to their dark-skinned compatriots south of the border, the USA
itself was facing one of the largest penalties in World Trade Organization history for
raising tariffs on steel products”(Palast). These raised tariffs have already closed two steel
plants in Venezuela. As usual Chavez does not hold back his feelings on this issue stating
that the “FTAA is the path to hell”(Palast). The refusal of Chavez to sign the FTAA
agreement is a source of much frustration to the US government.
Chavez has also very much annoyed the US government with his alteration of the
Venezuelan policy on oil production and export and Venezuela’s spearheading of OPEC.
OPEC (the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) controls the production of,
which ultimately plays a huge role in determining the price of, oil from all its member
states. Prior to Chavez, Venezuela “had gained notoriety among OPEC members for
habitually exceeding the OPEC production quotas and breaking ranks. This suited
Wan & Barnes 8
Washington as it kept oil prices down.”(Palast2) Now, Chavez has now nearly doubled all
royalties that foreign companies have to pay on Venezuelan oil from 16% to 30%. This has
seriously hurt the many US companies such as Exxon and Shell that operate in Venezuela.
In addition to this Chavez has cut Venezuelan oil production to fall in accordance with
OPEC regulations. This has obviously caused an increase in oil prices. Venezuela accounts
for near to 15% of all oil imports to the US, making the third largest importer of oil to the
US, and therefore, these policy changes have severely impacted the US (Chandrasekhar).
This factor alone separates Venezuela from Afghanistan, as Chavez is aware that the US is
reliant on Venezuelan oil. At a recent rally Chavez stated that, “if (the US Government)
tried to invade Venezuela or impose a trade blockade against his country, he would shut off
Venezuelan oil supplies to the United States.”(Fletcher). Chavez is clearly aware of the
power his country commands because of its vast oil resources and appears to be
determined to end foreign exploitation of those resources.
Wan & Barnes 9
As mentioned earlier Chavez has closely allied himself with Cuban leader Fidel
Castro. His association with Castro obviously does not meet with US approval. He has
given Cuba benefits including agreeing to “allow Cuba to pay for part of its oil imports
from Venezuela with goods and services”. Also, Chavez has been quoted as stating that,
“Cuba and Venezuela are, in effect, "one team."” He has also described Castro as “one of
his closest political allies and personal friends”. (Crespo)
Chavez has also angered the US on many occasions with his open criticism of
President Bush and his government. Following September 11th he criticised President
Bush’s “you are with us or against us” statement. He also spoke out “against the killing of
innocent civilians in Afghanistan in the United States' so-called war on terror” (Crespo).
Rather amusingly and perhaps refreshingly Chavez has also been quoted as, calling Bush
an “asshole”, Condoleezza Rice “a meddling illiterate” and accusing the US government of
“sticking its nose in”(Pipeline).
US Government and media portrayal of Chavez
Obviously the US government keeps a very close eye indeed on the relationship
between Castro and Chavez. Certainly if Chavez is as close as reports suggest to Castro
then the US could have some reason to be worried however, the media and government
does not hesitate to place massive emphasis on this friendship. Reading reports from
various US media and government sources one cannot help but notice a familiar pattern of
what can only be described as scare tactics designed to instill fear in the US public. The
other very obvious instance of the use of these tactics occurred following the September
Wan & Barnes 10
11th attack with regards to the country of Afghanistan and the entire Middle East region. In
that case, as will be explained in the second part of this investigation, the government used
the media to create an atmosphere of panic that enabled the US to invade Afghanistan and
later Iraq. The media coverage of the events in Venezuela is nothing like that in
Afghanistan but nonetheless one can certainly sense a clear stance that various US media
sources have taken. One media reports claimed that Chavez is turning his “oil rich country
into a base for international terrorism” (Crespo). Another, by US News entitled Terror
Close to Home, explained how Chavez’s connection the Castro meant that the US should
expect terrorist attacks to be launched from Venezuela. The theme of associating Chavez
with terrorism is also common, the Chicago Tribune having accused Chavez of “praising
Osama bin Laden.”(Coen), a totally false claim. The reports in the US media on the
military coup of April 2002 also revealed a worrying bias. Newsday of Long Island ran the
headline “Chavez's Ouster Is No Great Loss”, and even the normally reliable New York
Times praised the coup claiming that, “Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a
would-be dictator”(Coen). This is not to suggest however that all US media sources are
anti-Chavez, the New York Times has run various articles questioning the US policies and
behaviour in Venezuela, as has the Washington Post. However, the majority of US news
reporting either written or televised emphasises the danger Chavez could present to the US.
Members of the US government have been quoted numerous times making what
can be described as undemocratic statements regarding President Chavez. Following the
2002 coup a senior member of the administration was quoted as saying “He was
Wan & Barnes 11
democratically elected. He won a majority of votes. Legitimacy is something that is
conferred not just by a majority of votes, however.” (NygaardNotes). Once Chavez
returned to power after overcoming the coup the US National Security Advisor
Condoleezza Rice commented that Chavez had been “moving, frankly, in the wrong
direction for quite a long time”. She added: “I hope that Hugo Chavez takes the message
that his people sent him, that his own policies are not working for the Venezuelan people,
that he's dealt with them in a high-handed fashion.”(Campbell). President Bush himself
was also quoted as saying he hoped Chavez had “learned the lesson”, the Venezuelan coup
had given him (Campbell). The US Government was also shockingly quick to accept the
resignation of President Chavez whereas, other national leaders such as President Fox of
Mexico, were immediate in their condemnation of the military coup (Campbell).
Venezuelan opinions on Chavez
The purpose of this paper is by no means to portray President Chavez as an ideal,
faultless leader. Certainly he has made mistake and enemies, both in Venezuela and
abroad, in his time in power. Aside from the obvious tension with the US government there
are many other leaders who do not agree entirely with his policies. This said he survived
the recall election and retains the undeniable support of the poor population of Venezuela.
He has been democratically elected one two occasions with 57% and 58% of the vote and
that is more than can be said for President Bush.
The media of Venezuela is well known to be anti-Chavez. Wealthy Venezuelan
families own many of the largest broadcasting corporations and they would dearly like to
Wan & Barnes 12
see Chavez and his leftist polices defeated. The El Nacional group of newspapers does not
hide its opposition to Chavez nor do many other leading media groups. The owners are
supposedly angered by Chavez’s “alleged abuses of press freedom” however many claim
that they are in fact simply using the media as tools in the elitists’ fight against Chavez.
Indeed, the role the media played in, as Chavez alleged, inciting and misleading the public
during the 2002 coup attempt appears to be undeniable, during the coup one media tycoon
was reported to have told the coup leaders that “We can’t guarantee you the loyalty of the
army but we can promise you the support of the media.”(The Economist). The morning
after Chavez was removed, temporarily, from power the El Nacional newspaper, making
no attempt to hide its allegiances, lead with the celebratory headline, "It's over!"(Ceaser).
Aside from the military coup Chavez also faced enormous adversity during the
general strike of December 2001. Businesses across Venezuela ceased work in a reaction
to 49 laws that Chavez had recently passed. By Venezuelan law it was within his power to
have acted in this way but it was, nonetheless, a dramatic step to have taken. Many of the
laws concerned land reform and oil production and most companies claimed they were,
“hostile to private investment”(Easton). The strike was also called in support of “the
PDVSA managers' protest against a new board of directors seen as appointees of President
Chavez”(BBC News). The PDVSA is the largest oil production company in Venezuela and
is governed by, as stated in their website, an “Alignment and subordination to the State”.
Although the strike was, for the most part, peaceful it threatened to cripple the Venezuelan
economy and succeeded in bring oil production to a virtual standstill. Eventually after
Wan & Barnes 13
seven weeks President Chavez succeeded in ending the strike. After time public support for
the strike waned with Venezuela’s poor, loyal to Chavez, taking to the streets and
demonstrating in support of the leader. Chavez used drastic measures to crush the strike
including the sacking of 5,000 striking oil workers. As I have mentioned before Chavez’s
methods have been questioned on numerous occasions however, the fact remains that he is
a democratically elected leader and a general strike should not be used to remove him from
power. (McDermott)
The result of the general strike and numerous political protests for and against
President Chavez was the calling of a recall election. It was hoped that this would put an
end to the political conflicts that had become commonplace in Venezuela. Early
predictions showed that President Chavez would lose a recall election. The majority of the
media sources, who as already explained, were extremely anti-Chavez, were claiming that
the opposition would be victorious. Also voicing their support for the opposition were
many of the large corporations who had been involved in the general strike. Amid concerns
over possible corruption independent observers from The Carter Centre for conflict
resolution were present. Ultimately they would be required to verify the results as first the
opposition and then Chavez both claimed victory. However, it soon because apparent, that
Chavez had indeed survived the recall election with a massive 58% of the vote.
Chavez’s victory in the election can be attributed largely to his huge popularity
amongst Venezuela’s poor. He himself came from a poor background and throughout his
political career has focused on using government resources to benefit the most needy
Wan & Barnes 14
Venezuelans. After his victory in the election he vowed to continue his “Bolivian
revolution”. As part of his revolution Chavez has used money from oil exports to fund
programmes for the poor including “literacy, health care, job training, land reform,
subsidized food, small loans.”(Benjamin). Critics of Chavez claim that he has not actually
significantly improved the lives of the poor population. It is true that unemployment sits
just above 14% having risen from 12% in 1998, when Chavez was first elected. However,
the results of the election would seem to speak for themselves and the opposition cannot
deny that whatever President Chavez’s policies may be they have earned him the support
of 58% of the population, which is a massive margin of victory.
Allegations against the US Government
In the previous section I spoke about how Chavez’s policies have “alienated him
from Venezuela's traditional white ruling elite”(Becker), and how this can be seen as one
factor in the coup against him. Whilst it is true that anti-Chavez Venezuelans were behind
the coup, the strike and the recall election, allegations are rife of behind the scenes US
government interference. The main accusation leveled at the US is that they have given
massive financial support to those political parties that oppose Chavez. Obviously the US
government denies any such involvement however, evidence has been produce that would
appear to prove their guilt. Various reputable media sources have reported that “
Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that, in 2002, America
paid more than a million dollars to those political groups in what it claims, as was reported
by the Independent newspaper in March 2004, is an ongoing effort to build democracy and
Wan & Barnes 15
"strengthen political parties"”. The US government does not directly supply this funding, it
comes from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) which is a non-profit
organization designed to promote worldwide democracy. The NED does however receive
all its funding directly from the US government and many claim it is simply a method by
which the US can “routinely meddle in other countries' affairs” (Independent). Much of the
controversy centres on Sumate, a group that, according The Miami Herald, is simply a
“civic organization that promotes voter education, monitors elections and does independent
exit polls”, but according to Chavez and many foreign news sources it is associated with
political parties. On its website the NED does admit funding Sumate, but, only so that they
could “develop materials to educate citizens about the constitutional referendum process
and to encourage citizens to participate”. Other sources suggest however that Sumate’s
actually organized the recall petition against Chavez and used the US government funds to
promote the opposition parties cause.
As highlighted earlier in this paper the US government has many reasons to desire
the removal of Chavez and much evidence has surfaced to support Chavez’s claim that
they are actively seeking his removal. Following the coup “officials at the Organisation of
American States and other diplomatic sources asserted that the US administration was not
only aware the coup was about to take place, but had sanctioned it, presuming it to be
destined for success”(Vulliamy). Chavez has consistently maintained that the US is trying
to overthrow him and had full knowledge of the coup claiming that, “The Government of
Washington is using the money of its people to support not only opposition activities but
Wan & Barnes 16
acts of conspiracy,”(Palast). As a telling side note nearly all of the articles I found
regarding the coup were from non-US news sources. There is very little information to be
found in the US media on the events of April 2002 and when the coup was briefly reported
in the US the actual word “coup” is obviously avoided. Again, this does not provide any
evidence of US guilt, however, it does highlight their general stance and attitude towards
Chavez. Moreover, it once again highlights the extent to which the US media is merely a
voice for the US government.
Conclusion and comparison with Afghanistan
In conclusion this investigation has demonstrated that whilst there remains little
concrete evidence of the US government’s involvement in Venezuela there is much to
suggest that they did indeed interfere in the country’s affairs. Based on the US
government’s track record of meddling in South/Latin American countries one can guess
that there is at least some truth behind the allegations against the US. These allegations
include covertly funding the opposition to Chavez through the NED, having prior
knowledge of the 2002 military coup and even supporting that event. For the most part the
US media simply serves as the voice of the US government and distorts the facts and
manipulates the accounts of events in order to conform to the official government stance.
At no time has this paper sought to suggest that Chavez is a perfect President.
Certainly he has he faults, for example his close friendship with Cuban dictator Fidel
Castro should not be overlooked. That does not however, mean that the US is justified in
Wan & Barnes 17
its constant attempts to over-emphasise this connection nor should it divert attention from
the fact that President Chavez is democratically elected leader and not a dictator.
Many see the efforts of the US to create an atmosphere of fear surrounding Chavez,
playing off the events of September 11th, as merely a smoke screen for the true issue at
stake in Venezuela, oil. The US would like to see a more pro-US policy concerning oil
exports and they know that Chavez will not give it to them. Therefore, as Chavez claims,
they are seeking ways to remove him from power. This is where the connection with
Afghanistan becomes apparent, as the US removal of the Taliban government has been
closely linked to the Caspian oil reserves. As will be explained in the second half of this
paper, the US government was able to use military force to achieve their goals in
Afghanistan unlike Venezuela. There are various reasons that no such tactic could be use
in Venezuela. For example, there are no terrorists hiding in Venezuela that could provide a
convenient excuse for military action, Venezuela is not a third world country and has far
more power that Afghanistan due to its oil resources and, the US relies on those oil
resources and it is also in the US’s interests to maintain good trade agreements with
Venezuela. Another possible reason, albeit extremely depressing, is that the Western world
would care far more about the death of innocent Venezuelans, with whom we can associate
more easily, than the slaughter of thousands of men, women and children in Afghanistan,
with whom we feel little connection and for whom, evidently, we have little compassion.
Wan & Barnes 18
Afghanistan
If September 11th did not happen, then the United States would not have invaded
Afghanistan. At least that is what Bush would have everyone believe. Bush mistakenly
informs the American public time and time again that once the terrorist threat is over, the
American troops will be withdrawn. Nearly everybody from the supporters of the war to
the local bartender believes this to be the truth, and it isn’t entirely their fault. Bush
administrators have worked arduously to propagate the notion that America must be inside
Afghanistan for a matter of national security. The truth of the matter is that September 11th
and the whole ‘War on Terrorism’ was used as a justification to enter Afghanistan and
check up on their oil situation. Recent tasks such as seeking out Al-Qaida leaders, and
gaining full access to terrorist training camps have acted as a catalyst to American
involvement in the Middle East. Consequently, Bush propagandists have had a field day
spinning the truth to the American public. For example, Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld said, “September 10th, 2001, was not the last day of world innocence. It was,
however, the last day of America's lack of understanding of a worldwide extremist
movement determined to terrorize, to defeat, to destroy civilized people everywhere
(Rumsfeld 1).” Undoubtedly, there is no way any patriotic American would want to refute
this statement. However, what some people fail to realize is the American government’s
Wan & Barnes 19
hidden agenda in Afghanistan. In this particular case, there is too much clear evidence that
the United States has ulterior motives to be just, coincidence. The vast amount of oil in the
Caspian Sea, Cheney’s statements about the importance of the Caspian in relation to
national security, and the fact that the United States imports over half of its oil from
foreign countries are all supposed coincidences in the War on Terrorism.
The Issue: Oil and the Caspian Sea
The issue of oil and Afghanistan has long been a topic of controversy. The reason being is
that the Caspian Sea area contains a large amount of natural resources, or more
specifically, natural gas and oil. In fact, researchers expect oil production to even surpass
Venezuela, the current leader of South American oil exportation (Caspian 1). Thus, the
potential power that Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan (states of the Caspian)
residents could have is extremely big. Before Vice President Dick Cheney was Vice
President, he was CEO of the oil company, Halliburton and during his reign he stated, “I
cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as
strategically significant as the Caspian (Guardian 1).” The reason that Afghanistan is so
significant is because in order for the oil to benefit the United States, it must be piped
through a country to be
distributed. Other
countries around the
Caspian are not options
because the only
Wan & Barnes 20
countries that can complete this task are Russia and Iran. Both are countries that the
United States has worked diligently to suppress their political and economic growth. It is
distressing however to the United States that Iran is the most desirable route to pipeline oil
out of the Caspian because not only is it the most direct route, but the oil could be
processed in established Iranian oil compounds. The only logical country to pipeline the
oil through would be Afghanistan. For a map of the Caspian Sea and its surrounding areas,
see figure 1. Also, by pipelining the oil through Afghanistan it would allow sales to the
south where the demand for oil is high, as opposed to the west (Europe) where the demand
is low (Guardian 2). For a struggling economy, the largest monetary benefit is always a
primary concern.
The topic of energy is always one of high concern to the United States. The reason
being is obviously that we use an excessive amount of energy compared to other nations.
The United
States
currently
imports
around 51
percent of its
crude oil,
which
amounts to an astonishing 19.5 million barrels daily. By 2020, the Energy Information
Wan & Barnes 21
Administration approximates that the United States will import around 64 percent of its
crude oil, or 25.8 million barrels daily (Hindu 1). The entire Caspian Sea region is
estimated to have around 179 billion barrels of oil in its entirety. In terms of the dollar,
each barrel of oil is worth $25 dollars. Simple math allows one to estimate the value of all
of the oil in Caspian Sea, which amounts to about $4 trillion dollars. The amazing thing is
that oil isn’t even the only natural resource in the Caspian. Natural gas that amounts to
around $1 trillion dollars also resides there. This brings the total value of the Caspian Sea,
including all of its natural resources to over $5 trillion dollars (Energy Basin 1). It is no
wonder the United States is so interested in the region. However though, for obvious
reasons they are not the only country or even company interested.
Throughout the 1990’s, three major projects went underway in an attempt to
produce more oil from Caspian Sea region. Although none in Afghanistan, these
developments were
significant in the fact that
they would allow
previously unrecoverable
oil to be recoverable.
The first of these three
projects happened in
1993 when Chevron
conducted a $20 billion
Wan & Barnes 22
dollar deal in an attempt to aid the development of the Tengiz oil field. This oil field is
estimated to contain anywhere from six to nine billion barrels of oil. The result of this
investment was the joint company named Tengizchevroil. Because this region contains
export pipelines with more being built, Tengizchevroil has steadily increased its production
with a goal of around 750,000 bbl/day in 2010. The second project involves the
Azerbaijan International Oil Consortium (AIOC). In what was nicknamed the ‘deal of the
century,’ Azerbaijan International Oil Consortium bought the rights to three separate oil
fields, Azeri, Chirag, and Gunashli, respectively for eight years. All for the price of $8
billion dollars. These three areas are estimated to contain anywhere from three to five
billion barrels of oil. The final development involves the offshore Kashagan block. The
company that is developing the area is known as the Offshore Kazakhstan International
Operating Company (OKIOC). After initial drilling, estimates of this region are up to a
possible 40 billion barrels (Caspian 3). With all of the developments in the regions
surrounding the Caspian Sea, there is no doubt that once Afghanistan is able to obtain a
stable government, it too will be used to its full potential.
Oil’s Influence on the War on Terrorism
In the world today, oil is one of the most valuable natural resources. In fact, many
Middle Eastern countries survive solely because their land has oil within it. The United
States isn’t very different. Instead of just surviving, the United States is looking to prosper
further by controlling strategic points in the Middle East. In 1981, President Carter’s state
of the union addressed the issue of oil and his point was simple. Denial of safe access to
Wan & Barnes 23
Persian Gulf oil would not only be a threat to national security, but a threat to worldwide
security. In fact, Carter even named the Soviets as the most likely threat to American oil
access in the Persian Gulf, however he did claim that he would protect the surrounding
regions from anything and everything (Carter 1). It is obvious that the United States holds
oil in its highest regard and will go by any means necessary to ensure its continued access
to the Middle East.
In any case, in 1998, in an effort to gain more influence in the Middle East through
oil, the United States supported the Taliban. The reason being that the Taliban was Anti-
Iranian and the United States sought to do everything it could to hurt the Iranians. The
catch was that the once the Taliban was in power, they would have to agree to putting in an
oil pipeline for the United States. A single oil pipeline in Afghanistan could yield around
$100 million dollars in revenues. Irony strikes when the one of the main reasons Osama
Bin Laden even began his terrorist activities was because he realized the United States was
attempting to gain influence in the Middle East through Afghanistan and he wanted to have
no part of it. Interesting how his actions gave the United States an excuse to enter
Afghanistan without fear of question. Irony struck again when Iran released a statement
supporting the United States for their actions against the Taliban and Afghanistan.
In 2001, actions carried out by the United States Special Forces led many to believe
that the Bush administration had a hidden agenda in Afghanistan. The Special Forces team
was reported to have destroyed Iranian oil tankers transporting oil to Afghan cities (War
Wan & Barnes 24
1). The problem was that this had nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden or any sorts of
terrorists.
During the War on Terrorism in Afghanistan, the United States was given military
bases by Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan. The problem with that is that many of the
surrounding countries in Central Asia are questioning the intentions of the United States.
Specifically, they fear a permanent American presence in such a close proximity. Ahmed
Rashid, author of Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil, and Fundamentalism in Central Asia says
there have been rumors that a secret treaty between the United States and Uzbekistan
stating that the United States would be able to have a permanent establishment in their
state (Corporations 2).
With the downfall of the Taliban, the United States placed Hamid Karzai in charge.
Within the past year, President Karzai has attempted to restart negotiations of a possible
pipeline through Afghanistan. On December 9th 2003, the governments of Afghanistan,
Turkmenistan, and Pakistan signed a document to begin work on the pipeline, which has
been wit fully named the Trans-Afghan Pipeline or TAP for short (Afghanistan 1). Even
though this is natural gas news, it is still relevant that the new president of Afghanistan is
working to use Afghanistan to transport the energy resources out of the Caspian Sea. This
most likely was the goal of the United States all along. And by putting Karzai in power;
their goal would more likely be reached.
The Pro-War Viewpoint
Wan & Barnes 25
It can be said that the ‘War on Terrorism’ is actually a war on terrorism and to a
certain extent that is true. The United States would love to find Osama Bin Laden and all
of the Al-Qaeda operatives. In fact, if that had happened before the election, Bush quite
possibly could have won by the biggest margin in history. But, how much does the capture
of Bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda operatives really contribute to national security? The
United States is the most prestigious country in the world and those less fortunate than
America will always hate them. This is especially true when the United States is using its
influence to control one of the only natural resources and source of a struggling economy
in their region.
Recent studies have led many to believe that an oil pipeline in Afghanistan is not
even possible for the United States. In fact, it has already by tried by an oil company by
the name of Unocal. In late 1997, Unocal began negotiating with Afghanistan to begin the
construction of an oil pipeline that would extend from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan
into Pakistan (Unocal 1). The projected specifications for the oil pipeline were 42 inches
in diameter, 1040 miles in length, and carry around 1 million barrels of oil per day. It was
estimated that the project would cost around $2.5 billion dollars (Oil 1). Unfortunately,
Unocal did not end up constructing the oil pipeline because of instability along with a
variety of other reasons . At the time, Afghanistan was in amidst a civil war that tore the
country into two groups, Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, who controls the Taliban and the
United Front, who controls the Islamic State of Afghanistan. Whilst the fighting was
going on, the United States was once again searching for Osama bin Laden. In August of
Wan & Barnes 26
1998, in response to the destruction of two United States embassies, Nairobi and Dar es-
Salaam, the United States bombed training camps near the border of Pakistan (Untitled 1).
As a result, Unocal withdrew from Afghanistan without even starting construction on their
oil pipeline with the reason that the civil instability of Afghanistan made it impossible.
Along with the main cause of Unocal ceasing construction, there were also many
minor reasons as well. The first reason was the pressure of the feminists, led by Eleanor
Smeal and Mavis Leno (Corporations 1). In 1998, the feminists protested the dealings that
Unocal had with the Taliban by picketing outside of Unocal offices. The reason being that
the feminists felt that the Taliban was guilty of ‘gender apartheid.’ Basically the Taliban
suppressed women’s rights to an unbearable extent and needed to be fixed immediately.
Some of the biggest problems the feminists had with the Taliban was that they did not
allow women to read, thus causing the female literacy rate in Afghanistan to be a mere four
percent. Other restrictions that were put on females included not being able to laugh in
public and not being able to walk outside without a male accompaniment (Feminists 1).
Following Unocal’s termination of its construction in Afghanistan, no other oil
companies, not even international have attempted to claim Afghanistan. According to
Ahmed Rahsid, the Unocal situation caused a lot of unrest with a lot of other oil
companies. For obvious reasons, the sentiment in the United States towards oil companies
was sour. Rashid also states that the possible presence of Osama Bin Laden in the vicinity
poses too much of a risk to safely establish ties with Afghanistan (Corporations 1). He
Wan & Barnes 27
does however admit that setting up shop in Afghanistan is on the back of every oil
companies mind because of the vast profit that one could possibly make.
It can be said that the war supporters do have valid points that there is no way the
United States could be scheming for oil, there are still a few arguments left unscathed.
Most of the arguments that war supporters make are from the Afghanistan of the past, still
ruled under the Taliban. Contemporary Afghanistan is governed by the president that the
United States placed there strategically. Oil companies now have recently viewed an
increased stability of the government and may once again attempt to harvest the natural
resources Afghanistan has to offer.
The Impact of US Intervention
Prior to September 11th, the United States along with almost all of the established
nations worldwide were in competition to try to establish themselves as the oil gods of the
Middle East. The United States’ biggest rival was of course Russia. Not only because of
its location of being right next to the Caspian Sea, but because of tensions still left behind
from the Cold War. Former Prime Minister Boris Yeltsin said, “We cannot help seeing the
uproar stirred up in some Western countries over the energy resources of the Caspian.
Some seek to exclude Russia from the game and undermine its interests. The so-called
pipeline war in the region is part of this game (JURIST 1).” Both the United States wanted
a monopoly of the pipelines branching out from the Caspian because of the obvious
monetary benefits.
Wan & Barnes 28
Following the events of September 11th, an article in the New York Times was
published, titled ‘Russia is Becoming an Oil Ally.’ The article states that Russia decided
to be an ally of the United States in the war on terror, and as a result, political ties have
been strengthened. Laurent Ruseckas of Cambridge Energy stated that, “The trend was
already towards a depoliticization of Caspian energy, and this definitely advances that,” in
an effort to show that the United States and Russia were truly becoming allies in the oil
industry as well (Russia 1). The ‘alliance’ could be short-lived however because as
quickly as they became allies, Russia broke the trust of the United States. Russia provided
the United Front with arms and coaxed them to move into Kabul (JURIST 2).
The ‘War on Terrorism’ has had many interesting events occur during its duration.
For example, the Taliban was overthrown. However, what isn’t widely known is that
before it was overthrown, Bush was eager to do business with them. Bush’s ultimatum to
the Taliban in threatening them if they did not turn over Osama Bin Laden was actually a
hidden scheme to separate the two in hopes of befriending the Taliban (Hindu 4). Only
when the ultimatum did not succeed was Bush forced to overthrow the Taliban and set in
motion the plan for a democratic leader.
Regrettably, it is the easy thing to do nowadays to believe that the United States
government is scrupulous in its actions. With all the propaganda thrown at the public from
the Bush administration, it is no wonder people believe that the only reason we are
invading Afghanistan is that we believe they are holding Osama Bin Laden. Sure that is
one of their goals, however obviously not a priority of the United States.
Wan & Barnes 29
Conclusion
The goal of this research paper was to highlight the growing problem of US
interference in worldwide democracy or politics. The two examples we chose to analyse
were picked specifically because they show two very different tactics employed by the US
government. In Afghanistan the US were obviously able to use military force to remove
the Taliban government. During the military campaign in Afghanistan the civilian losses
were huge and yet the US was still able to continue with their actions. The vast majority of
the US media groups and also the US public supported the invasion of Afghanistan and the
general consensus appeared to be that the death of thousands of innocent Afghanis was
merely a necessary evil. The US government used its almost total control of the media to
convince the public that this war was not only justified as it was self-defense following the
attacks of September 11th but also that is was a moral crusade to free the Afghani people
from the terror of the Taliban government. Interestingly the US government had actually
spoken out in support of the Taliban government just a few years prior to September 11th
and had been seeking to cooperate with them on the building of a pipeline from the
Caspian Sea through Afghanistan. The oil of the Caspian sea, as we have hopefully
highlighted in this paper, is the real reason behind the US invasion of Afghanistan. The US
government has deceived the American people using the media and a faux “war on terror”
in an attempt to gain control of Afghanistan and therefore, control of the pipeline route.
The theme of the US government’s need for oil has been a constant throughout this
entire paper. In Venezuela much of the true problem the US has with President Chavez
Wan & Barnes 30
centres around his policies on Venezuelan oil production. These polices have severely hurt
the US which relies on Venezuela for 15% of its oil. The US is also concerned about the
powerful role Venezuela has within OPEC. As we have emphasized during this paper
although the main driving force behind the US involvement in each of these countries
remains the same, oil, the behaviour of the US has been markedly different. The reason
behind that, is much as the US media, which remember is always in the pocket of the US
government, attempts to paint him as one, President Chavez is not a dictator and he has
been democratically elected not once but twice, with massive margins of victory each time.
The US has interfered as much as possible in the democratic processes of Venezuela
providing funding for the opposition party, allegedly supporting the failed military coup of
2002 and continually portraying Chavez as a dictator and villain. They cannot however use
military force in Venezuela because it is a relatively rich and powerful country thanks to its
oil resources. In this example the US is simply forced to accept Chavez’s rule, whereas in
other situations they have been known to wage economical warfare by placing ridiculous
trade restrictions on a country Chavez has already ruled out the option by stating that if the
US does that to Venezuela he will cases all oil exports. Unfortunately for the innocent
men, women and children of Afghanistan they had no such power and so were defenseless
against the brutal US military attack.
Wan & Barnes 31
Works Cited: Alice Barnes, analysis of Venezuela and Latin/South America
“A “killing field” in the Americas: US policy on Guatemala”. Third World Traveller, Nov 2004. Available from World Wide Web: (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/US_Guat.html)
“All the News That's Fit to Print.” New York Times, Apr 2002. Nygaard Notes, Nov 2004. Available from World Wide Web: (http://www.nygaardnotes.org/issues/nn0155.html)
Becker, Mark. “Chavez Wins Referendum.” The Touchstone. Sep 2004. Available from World Wide Web: (http://www.rtis.com/touchstone/oct2004/15.html)
Benjamin, Medea. “Why Hugo Chavez Won a Landslide Victory." Common Dreams. Aug 2004. Available from World Wide Web: (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0817-01.htm)
Campbell, Duncan. “Bush's Bay of Piglets.” The Guardian. Apr 2002.
Ceaser, Mike. “Venezuelan media: 'It's over!'.” BBC News. Apr 2002. The BBC. Sep 2004. Available from World Wide Web: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1926983.stm)
Chandrasekhar, C.P. “The Promise of the Chavez Offensive.” Feb 2003, IDEAS. Sep 2004. Available from World Wide Web: (http://www.networkideas.org/themes/resources/feb2003/re08_Chavez_Offensive.htm)
“Chavez Calls Bush 'Asshole' as Foes Fight Troops.” Reuters. Feb 2004. Pipeline Sep 2004. Available from World Wide Web: (http://www.pipeline.com/~rougeforum/chavezcallsbush.html)
“CLINTON'S REPRISAL HITS IRAQ” [online]. 1996. The Winds, Nov 2004.Available from World Wide Web: (http://www.apfn.org/thewinds/archive/newworld/a101096c.html)
Coen, Rachel. “U.S. Papers Hail Venezuelan Coup as Pro-Democracy Move.” ExtraUpdate, June 2002. FAIR.org, Nov 2004. Available from World Wide Web: (http://www.fair.org/extra/0206/venezuela-coup.html)
“Coup and Counter-coup.” The Economist Global Agenda. Apr 2002. The Economist. Nov 2004. Available from World Wide Web:
Wan & Barnes 32
(http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1085743)
Crespo, Paul. “Venezuela: The Next Cuba.” Front Page Magazine. Mar 2004. The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Nov 2004. Available from World Wide Web: (http://www.defenddemocracy.org/in_the_media/in_the_media_show.htm?doc_id=215213)
Easton, Adam. “Venezuela's Chavez faces labour wrath.” BBC News. Dec 2001. The BBC. Sep 2004. Available from World Wide Web: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1701778.stm)
Fletcher, Pascal. “Chavez: Venezuela would stop oil to U.S. if invaded.” Reuters. Feb 2004. Independent Media TV. Sep 2004. Available from World Wide Web: (http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=5970&fcategory_desc=Venezuela)
Hinson, Hal. “The Panama Deception”, The Washington Post 17 Oct. 1992
McDermott, Jeremy. “Chavez ‘beats’ general strike as the oil flows.” News.Telegraph. Jan 2003. The Telegraph. Nov 2004. Available from World Wide Web: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/30/wven30.xml)
Olson, Alexandra. “Call Made for South American Trade Bloc.” Associated Press. Aug 2003. Global Exchange. Nov 2004. Available from World Wide Web: (http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/ftaa/1010.html)
Palast, Greg. “Hugo Chavez vs. The Free Trade Zombies of the Americas.” Dec 2003, Morphizm. Nov 2004. Available from World Wide Web: (http://www.morphizm.com/politix/palast/palast_chavez.html)
Palast, Greg. “Don't believe everything you read in the papers about Venezuela.” The Guardian. Apr 2002. Arena. Sep 2004. Available from World Wide Web: (http://www.arena.org.nz/vencred.htm)
The CIA in Nicaragua. Wake Up Articles, 23 Nov 2004. Available from World Wide Web:(http://www.wakeupmag.co.uk/articles/cia5.htm)
“Venezuelan general strike extended.” BBC News. Apr 2002. The BBC. Nov 2004. Available from World Wide Web: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1918189.stm)
Wan & Barnes 33
Vulliamy, Ed. “Venezuela coup linked to Bush team.” The Observer. Apr 2002. The Guardian. Nov 2004. Available from World Wide Web: (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html)
Works Cited: James Wan, analysis of Afghanistan and Caspian Region
Afghanistan Country Analysis Brief. 8 Nov .2004 <http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html>
Caspian Sea Region. 5 Nov .2004 <http://www.mll.gr/Kat/History/Txt/CaspianSeaRegion.htm>
Caspian Sea ENERGY BASIN. 5 Nov .2004 <http://www.emu.edu.tr/~eefegil/caspianseaenergybasin.htm>
Corporations, National Security and War Profiteering. 8 Nov .2004 <http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2001/01november/nov01interviewrashid.html>
Feminists v. The Taliban. 12 Nov .2004<http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/000/316yqawi.asp>
Guardian Unlimited | Columnists | George Monbiot: America's pipe dream. 5 Nov .2004<http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,579174,00.html>
The Hindu: America, oil and Afghanistan. 5 Nov .2004 <http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2001/10/13/stories/05132524.htm>
JURIST - Cohn: The Deadly Pipeline War: U.S. Afghan Policy Driven By Oil Interests. 12 Nov .2004 <http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew41.php>
Is an Oil Pipeline behind the War in Afghanistan? 12 Nov .2004 <http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/sardi7.html>
Rumsfeld defends 'war on terror'. 5 Nov .2004 <http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040910-060938-9283r.htm>
Unocal statement on withdrawal from the proposed Central Asia Gas (CentGas) pipeline project 12/10/98. 12 Nov .2004 <http://www.unocal.com/uclnews/98news/centgas.htm>
Untitled Document. 12 Nov .2004 <http://www.unomaha.edu/afghanistan_atlas/civilwar.html>
Wan & Barnes 34
USA: Carter State of Union 1981. 8 Nov .2004 <http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/jc39/speeches/su81jec.htm>
The War for Oil Subtext in Afghanistan. 8 Nov .2004<http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1125-06.htm>
Russia, Oil. 13 Nov .2004 <http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/5499-11.cfm>