Afghanistan's President Karzai signs deal on gas pipeline project

[unhappycamper]

Afghanistan's President Karzai signs deal on gas pipeline project
By Borzou Daragahi, Los Angeles Times
December 12, 2010

Reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan — Afghan President Hamid Karzai met with regional leaders Saturday to sign an agreement for a massive energy project that could eventually net his country billions of dollars in revenue: a 1,000-mile natural gas pipeline whose proposed route cuts through the heartland of the Taliban insurgency.

As if to highlight the complications facing the project, at least 26 people were killed in attacks Friday and Saturday, including a Taliban commander and several people believed to be with a private security firm, Afghan and NATO officials said.

The United States strongly supports the proposed pipeline because it could draw Central Asia's significant energy resources to Pakistan and India an bypass Iran, Washington's top adversary in the region.

Karzai met with Turkmen, Indian and Pakistani officials in Ashgabat, the capital of neighboring Turkmenistan, to sign the accord.

"On this very important occasion, let me once again highlight our vision for regional cooperation, which is to contribute to regional stability and prosperity," Karzai said in a statement, "and to enhance the conditions for Afghanistan to resume its central role as a land bridge in this region."



unhappycamper comment: The United States strongly supports the proposed pipeline because the oil lobby sez we need it.

Remember the rule: Follow the money.

[KG]

1. wonder what karzai's cut was?

[Jeanette in FL]

2. Wasn't that the plan all along?

I remember in the early days of this war, the bombings of Afghanistan followed the exact locations of a proposed pipeline that would bypass Iran.

Karzai was their man to get the job done.

[mmonk]

8. Yes. Karzai is a former spokesperson of big oil for the pipeline.

[SoCalDem]

3. Well well, isn't that "special"

Same "plan" that was refused prior to 9-11?

I'm sure the moneyed-classes will sleep better now, knowing that their oil portfolios will "like it"..

[madrchsod]

4. well it`s about time!

that that blood and the deal is finally done! now the europeans or the indians and the chinese can stay warm and fuel their industries.

[WinkyDink]

5. IT'S WHY WE ARE THERE. Natural gas....and the opium poppy fields. "9/11", yeah, sure. TIMELINE:

http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/Timeline.htm

http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=6458

[dixiegrrrrl]

12. ty for the links. Bookmarking.

edited to add:
It would be interesting to look at the oil/gas pipeline route on your link and compare that to the locations of the
fighting we are doing.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that the route went right thru Taliban areas....?

[postulater]

6. Mission Accomplished!

Isn't this what that war was all about in the first place?

[SpiralHawk]

7. "Smirk." - xCommander AWOL (R)

[madokie]

9. That pipeline is what it's all about

the war there that is

[social_critic]

10. I don't think the war is about a pipeline

That's a very old urban legend. But the old story was about an OIL pipeline proposed by Unocal in the 1990's. That pipeline was a pretty dumb idea, and of course it'll never be built. Later, some other goofball came up with the gas pipeline idea. This pipeline is just meant to serve as a stalking horse for negotiations between Turkmenistan and Russia. Iran is self sufficent in gas, therefore the rumor that it wants to import Turkmen gas is bs.

[madokie]

11. The gas is for the world blocks consumption

best I remember. And yes the war is about the gas pipeline they are talking about building now. For a project of that nature first you have to secure the area which is what is happening now.

Liquified natural gas is going to get real popular once that pipeline is completed. mark my words

[Odin2005]

13. Mission Complete!

[Puregonzo1188]

14. Great! Can we bring the troops home now?

Oh wait, I forget NATO is redefining its mission as protecting Western access to Caspian Sea extracts.

Well, going up to the present, President Obama’s national security adviser, James Jones, has been a strong advocate of the view that NATO should expand further to the east and to the south and that, in fact, it should—to the east and to the south means to control the energy-producing regions. The head of NATO, Dutch, the Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer, has proposed, advocates that NATO should take the responsibility for protecting energy supplies to the West—pipelines, sea lanes, and so on.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/4/3/noam


Pretty interesting, when you consider that NATO a defensive alliance against the Soviet Union, has only intervened twice, neither time in defense and both times after the breakdown of the Soviet Union.

Regardless, I guess while be in Afghanistan forever guarding the pipeline.

[leftstreet]

15. Thanks for that link

I had it once before and lost it.

:hi:

[Puregonzo1188]

17. I had to search for it. Chomsky came to my school a couple of years ago and I think that was the

first time I heard about the NATO expansion stuff. It's a serious issue, but not a lot of people know about it, not even in the anti-war community or on DU.

The idea of turning NATO into a global intervention force to ensure Western access to resources should be something that every sane person is vocally opposing. Unfortunately, there's so many more urgent, immediate things--the escalation in Afghanistan, the back room deals against the public option, the latest betrayal around tax cuts that NATO's been allowed to go unnoticed. I can't help but fear for the future--this one is really going to come back to haunt us.

[leftstreet]

18. All Their Resources R Belong to US

No kidding, and NATO expansion has always been off the M$M radar

"Why should we even be debating NATO, is there any reason why it should exist?" - Chomsky

[Autumn]

16. Congratulations to Dick, Halliburton, George,

and all the little dead people who made this possible.