Mark Phillips: The American Question

6/23/03: The pipeline redux.

It's still not a war for oil.

I argued in late 2001 that the invasion of Afghanistan, and what was then the coming invasion of Iraq, were not attempts in any direct way to control the region's natural resources. (See my long piece, "It's Not a War for Oil".) This point of view disagrees with mainstream left analysis represented by John Pilger and others, who maintain that the Afghan campaign was principally intended to enable a major natural gas pipeline project bringing Caspian resources to market.

What then about the consortium formed by Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, and Pakistan to build exactly such a pipeline?

An agreement has been signed in the Turkmen capital, Ashgabat, paving the way for construction of a gas pipeline from the Central Asian republic through Afghanistan to Pakistan. ("Central Asia pipeline deal signed", BBC, 12/27/02.)

It makes sense that the leaderships of the three countries would try to do this. The Karzai government would certainly value the transit revenues and construction jobs the project would create. From their point of view it would be irresponsible not to try.

Nevertheless there'll never be an Afghan pipeline. Not in our lifetimes. There'll be no funding for it. No capitalist board of directors would approve such an incompetent investment. Their capital would go up in flames, despite a million troops guarding it. Every competent corporate executive knows that, even without the recent Iraqi sabotage of pipelines as graphic examples.

I'm not making this up. To date the consortium has attracted precisely $0 in investment. This Energy Information Administration briefing explains why not:

Given the obstacles to development of a natural gas pipeline across Afghanistan, it seems unlikely that such an idea will make any progress in the near future, and no major Western companies have expressed interest in reviving the project. The security situation in Afghanistan is one obvious major risk, and the tensions between India and Pakistan make it unlikely that such a pipeline could be extended into India, which unlike Pakistan has sufficient immediate demand for imported natural gas to justify a project of such magnitude. Financial problems in the utility sector in India, which would be the major consumer of the natural gas, also could pose a problem.

Now, here's what interests me. Contrast the BBC's reporting of the obstacles faced by the consortium with the reportage of the left press. truthout.org editorializes this way:

Since September 11th, 2001, there has been intense speculation regarding Bush administration negotiations with the Taliban regarding this very project prior to the attacks. American petroleum giant Unocal very much wanted this project for years, but it was stymied in 1998 after bin Laden blew up two American embassies in Africa, causing the Taliban to be diplomatically isolated. There are a number of reports that describe a reinvigoration of this pipeline plan after Bush took office, and further describe the Bush administration's negotiations with the Taliban including threats of war if the project was not allowed to pass through Afghanistan. Some say these threats, in the name of the pipeline, triggered the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban is gone, Afghan President Harmid Karzai is a former Unocal consultant, and the pipeline deal is finally done.

Why does conspiracy theory like this hold such prominence in left analysis?

I think, for a basic reason. These analysts are groping for something more than merely a narrative independent of manipulative government rhetoric about high-minded causes and justice and building a safer world. Some of these writers are attempting a materialist explanation, which in their minds demands an "economic" motivation. The problem is that the decline of the social movements since their peak in the early 1970s, and with it the decline of Marxist theory, has left these writers unprepared theoretically to tackle the kind of analysis they believe they should make.

Whose parody of Marxism is this, after all? The ruling class'. The idea that Marxism is an "economic determinism", preferably a shallow one, has been a basic trope of bourgeois ideologists for 150 years. The fact that writers on the left, people with strong ethics and excellent intentions, internalize and accept the parody is an indication of the low ebb of the movements.

I'm not slagging these writers. I'm pointing out the impact which historical context has on the way people think. Will an upswing of mass struggles in the First World lead to a renewal of rebel theory?

Back to 2003 menu
Back to Mark's Blogspace main page

More Information

1. "Central Asia pipeline deal signed", BBC, 12/27/02
2. "Afghanistan Fact Sheet", EIA, October, 2002
3. "All roads lead to Tehran", Phillips
4. "Complexity", Phillips
5. "weblogs: a history and perspective", blood
6. "You've got blog", Mead
7. EatonWeb Portal
8. BlogHop
9. Blogger
10. Blogroots
11. The Pepys Project