On the topic of International relations and foreign policy it is always important to keep an open mind. The "truth" can be a tricky thing and an intelligent person must always be willing to alter his positions and change his mind on an almost continuous basis.
Foreign policy between countries will almost always have at least two points of view competing for legitimacy. I remember being told that if any side in a pragmatic discussion of foreign policy between nations brings up religious claims to justify their point of view they have lost the argument. The same could be true for the diary Jerome a paris just posted on pipeline conspiracy theories.
Jerome is a great writer who I think should be on the Front Page as a staff writer on Kos. On this topic he misses the mark though. I'd be willing to say that anyone who brings up the words "conspiracy theories" in a debate on pipelines is trying to A) demonise the other side B) trying to justify a weak argument.
Pipelines are vital to our societies. You type the words "Pipeline network Europe" or "Pipeline network America" into google image and you will see a picture of the region with a spiderweb of oil and gas pipelines running over it.
Pipelines are the blood veins of countries, cities, and commerce. So of course if you are involved in international relations between countries or regions pipelines will always come up as they are shared projects.
Gazprom, the Russian gas monopoly, halted nearly all its natural gas exports to Europe on Tuesday, sharply escalating its pricing dispute with neighboring Ukraine. The cutoff led to immediate shortages from France to Turkey and underscored Moscow’s increasingly confrontational posture toward the West.
Source: New York Times 9th Jan 2009
No conspiracy theory is present. World leaders in the EU will easily talk about it's worries about Europe's dependence of Russia's pipeline network for it's gas.
It will also make clear the the BTC (Baku-Tbilsi-Ceyhan) pipeline is an attempt to get Gas from the Caspain sea over to Turkey where it can then be fed into the EU grid and also down into Israel as is being proposed at the moment.
Jerome's piece brings up the fact that the pipeline in Turkmenistan running through Afghanistan and into the huge Pakistan market will never happen. That can be debated but not for the reasons Jerome states.
A lot has been said recently about Turkey's relations with Israel. Turkey's PM is apparently pissed with Israel over Gaza. But one thing that continues is plans by Turkey and Israel to link up pipelines. Why? Because it is big business and means a lot of money for Turkey and a lot of energy security for Israel. Neither side has an interest in screwing themselves over.
Also on Turkey, it recently said it is against Iran sanctions. Why? Because of the proposed Nabucco Pipeline which will ship Iranian gas through Turkey and into Europe. Indeed it appears that when it comes to International relations countries can fight publicly all they want but no side is willing to cripple themselves by not investing in pipelines.
TAP vs IPI
Now Jerome says the TAP (Turkmenistan/Afghan/Pakistan) pipeline won't happen because Turkmenistan is a dictatorship. True it is, but a dictatorship that is US-EU friendly (the US in 2007 decided to "turn the page on relations") and even dictatorships are interested in making extra money by the 10's of billions a year.
Afghanistan is rightly a mess. To say that the US went into Afghanistan because of a pipeline conspiracy is not the whole truth not even half the truth. But there is an element of truth.
International relations is built up of not only countries but vested interests (whether NGO's or Multinational corporations). What is good for Gazprom is usually good for Russia. What is good for Petróleos de Venezuela is usually good for Venezuela. Like boeing and the America VS Airbus and Europe. Vested interests factor into International relations all the time.
I agree with Jerome that the TAP pipeline is in trouble. But not for the reasons he says. It's competition with the IPI pipeline from Iran to Pakistan to India will probably sink it.
If it ever gets built, a major node on that Grid will surely be the prospective $7.6 billion Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) pipeline, also known as the "peace pipeline." After years of wrangling, a nearly miraculous agreement for its construction was initialed in 2008. At least in this rare case, both Pakistan and India stood shoulder to shoulder in rejecting relentless pressure from the Bush administration to scotch the deal.
Source: Pepe Escobar (Pipelineistan goes Af-Pak)
Every time I've visited Iran, energy analysts stress the total "interdependence of Asia and Persian Gulf geo-ecopolitics." What they mean is the ultimate importance to various great and regional powers of Asian integration via a sprawling mass of energy pipelines that will someday, somehow, link the Persian Gulf, Central Asia, South Asia, Russia, and China.
Afghanistan, as it happens, sits conveniently at the crossroads of any new Silk Road linking the Caucasus to western China, and four nuclear powers (China, Russia, Pakistan, and India) lurk in the vicinity. "Losing" Afghanistan and its key network of U.S. military bases would, from the Pentagon's point of view, be a disaster.
Zbigniew Brzenski in his book The Grand Chessboard talked about about the Caspian sea and the energy hub of central Asia and it is a book well worth the read. Despite what you may think of the man he does have a brilliant mind (if misguided) but it is always useful to know what one of the leaders in US foreign policy is talking about.
In conclusion I would make the point that while the US had a real interest in invading Afghanistan in 2001 after the 9-11 attacks there were other factors encouraging this and encouraging the continuing presence to this day, 8 years later.