He who pays the Piper
by Donna Baillie

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is, of course, no doubt that the US government genuinely wants to get its hands on Osama Bin Laden. They have been after him ever since his involvement in the bombings of two US embassies in east Africa in 1998. But so far they haven't had much luck. Their bombing of a pharmaceutical company in Sudan, which had been wrongly identified as a Bin Laden stronghold, pays testimony to the difficulties the US has had in getting accurate intelligence regarding Bin Laden's exact whereabouts. By the time they were bombing Sudan, Bin Laden had already escaped to Afghanistan. Once they realised this, they started putting pressure on the Taliban to hand him over.

Weeks before the horrific attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Taliban had been warned by the US via the Pakistani government that unless they surrendered Bin Laden, they would be subjected to military strikes. The Taliban refused to comply, and whether indepedently or in response to the threat of military action by the US, terrorist attacks were launched on New York and Washington. George W Bush's subsequent "wanted dead or alive" speech only served to underscore an existing policy. Osama Bin Laden was public enemy number one.

There is also no doubt that the Taliban wanted to avoid being attacked by US military forces. After the events of 11 September, the prospect of US attacks on Afghanisan suddenly became a very real threat. Knowing that they had little hope of maintaining their control of Afghanistan in the face of western military assault, the Taliban twice offered up Osama bin Laden for extradition. Both offers were rebuffed.

The first, at the beginning of October, was barely mentioned in the western press. The Taliban, reportedly with bin Laden's approval, suggested that an international tribunal in Pakistan should be presented with the US evidence against bin Laden (which the US still hasn't let anyone other than its NATO allies and Pakistan see) and decide whether to try him itself or hand him over to the US for trial there. The offer was refused by President Musharraf of Pakistan, on the rather astonishing grounds that he "could not guarantee bin Laden's safety". The second offer, on 14 October, was more widely reported but just as strongly rejected. This time the offer included finding a third country, to be agreed on by both the US and Afghanistan, to serve as the venue for bin Laden's trial. Bush - the alleged leader of the democratic free world - replied, "When I said no negotiations, I meant no negotiations. We know he's guilty. Turn him over. There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt."

Judging by their refusal to negotiate, it would appear that the US government is not actually interested in having the Taliban surrender bin Laden. By imposing a condition that no country in the world would agree to - refusal to provide evidence - the US has made it impossible for the Taliban to extradite bin Laden without undermining their own sovereignty in Afghanistan. So what does the US hope to gain? Their intentions have obviously gone beyond merely getting bin Laden - he has already been offered up twice. What is so important that the US would risk manipulating an already dangerous situation into one of all out war?

The answer is depressingly familiar. When in doubt, follow the money. According to Caspian Media Consulting, which provides news and analysis about the Caspian region, "The biggest oil rush in the last days of our century is underway in the turbulent waters of the Caspian. Rivalled only by the Great Game of the last century, today's battles are fought not over territory, but pipeline routes and political influence".

The Caspian Sea - bordered by Afghanistan's neighbours Iran and Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Russia and Azerbaijan - has oil reserves estimated to be at least as great as those in the North Sea. Kazakhstan is generally conceded to be the country with the largest share of the oil, although there is still some dispute over sovereignty. In 1993 the US oil company Chevron and the Republic of Kazakhstan formed a partnership known as Tengizchevroil to develop the Tengiz and Korolev oil fields in the Caspian. The Tengiz field is thought to contain 6 to 9 billion barrels of recoverable oil. As the oil in the Caspian belongs to non-Opec countries who are hungry for foreign investment and technology, you might think that this was a perfect situation for western companies to exploit. The sticking point, however, has been how to transport the oil from the Caspian Sea to western markets.

In 1995 another US oil company, Unocal, began negotiations for a pipeline to transport oil and gas from the region through Afghanistan in order to sell it in Pakistan and India. At this point the Taliban, in spite of growing worldwide concern about its human rights abuses, was considered by the US government to be a useful ally that would play ball when it came to American oil interests. Investors, however, were not so confident. Continued fighting between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance led to fears of disruption and possible terrorist attacks on any pipeline going through the region. This has made financial backing very difficult for the oil companies involved in the region to secure.

So what about other possible routes? Unfortunately, none of them is very US-friendly, and most are long enough to make the cost of transporting the oil prohibitively expensive. From the US point of view, none of the options are very attractive. There is a route through Russia. There is a route through Iran. There is a route through Turkey that President Clinton favoured, but the Turkish government has objected to any increase in tanker traffic through the Turkish straits on environmental grounds.

The huge potential for profit from the transport of the Caspian oil has led to a rather unlikely coalition. The Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC) is made up of Russia, Kazakhstan, Oman and a variety of commercial oil companies, the biggest western players being Chevron and BP. The delicate balance of power between the eastern governments - who need western technology and investment, but who are determined to keep control of their natural resources, and the western oil companies intent on maximising their profits, means that there is a constant struggle to maintain strategic advantage between the respective governments of these players. The CPC has already opened one pipeline - the Baku-Novorossiysk - which runs through Russian territory, and there is the prospect of introducing even more pipelines utilising existing Russian infrastructure. The US and Britain, however, are concerned that this would give Russia a very strong advantage in any future disputes. In order for western investors to feel positive about this project, a safer route for the oil needs to be found. The future profits of the oil companies depend on it.

That the Bush administration is heavily tied in with the oil business isn't exactly news. It is interesting to note, however, that the Caspian Pipeline Consortium's major western players, Chevron and BP, were major contributors to Bush's presidential campaign. (Between them they donated nearly £3 million.) And in fact, Bush's National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, was on the board of directors for Chevron from 1991-2001, and has even had an oil tanker named after her. When Bush's vice-president, Dick Cheney, retired as CEO of the Halliburton Company - which is heavily involved in oil exploration in the Caspian region - he was given a $20 million severance package. Cheney has always insisted that there would be no conflict of interest between his governmental duties and his connections with Halliburton (which, incidentally, has just announced record profits for the third quarter of 2001).

And now that China is officially joining the World Trade Organisation in November 2001, the route through Afghanistan becomes even more potentially lucrative. With the opening up of the huge Chinese market, a pipeline through Afghanistan is too important to risk losing. The US needed an excuse to go in and take control of the region, and the terrible events of 11 September provided it.

Trying Osama bin Laden in an international court and leaving the Taliban and the Northern Alliance battling over Afghanistan is therefore no longer a viable option for the Bush administration. In order for western oil companies to achieve their aims, the Taliban must be replaced with a regime that will ensure stability in the region and be amenable to the needs of the oil companies. So the US governmentÕs evidence against bin Laden is only shown to their allies instead of the world at large, and the offers of extradition are ignored. Instead, the bombing starts and the troops are sent in.

Thousands of innocent people in Afghanistan are subjected to bombing raids and the very real threat of death by starvation. US and British troops are sent in to fight a "war on terrorism" whose tactics will only serve to harden the resolve of those already in favour of terrorist action against the west, and make it easier for them to attract more recruits. And by defining the war on terrorism as a global battle, the doors are left open to extend the fight into Iraq, because 10 years of bombing and sanctions still haven't managed to oust Saddam Hussein, who is sitting on the world's second largest known reserves of oil. The Great Game continues.