Editorial:


WHY PEACE HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVABLE IN AFGHANISTAN.
   

If you were to ask Afghans about the possibility of peace in their homeland, each one would take a deep breath and stare into the horizon of his or her memory of the peaceful time in their country. Then, with a sad expression on their faces and a spark of hope in their eyes, each would answer you, "I hope for peace and I desire a peaceful Afghanistan." If Afghans do hope for and desire peace, then why does the civil war continue to devastate the people and destroy their country? To answer this question, one must study the following three factors which contributed vastly to the continuation of the armed conflicts in Afghanistan:

A) The absence of a workable political alternative by the Afghan political leadership to achieve peace between the warring factions. This does not mean that the Taliban leadership or the opposition lack a peace plan to end the bloodshed. It does, however, mean that their plans are not workable, and this failure results from the absence of the people’s voice. The Afghan political leader’s peace plans are limited to their party and its organizational guidelines. As such, they consider the interests of the political parties and their leadership and fail to consider the voice of the Afghan people. The correctness of their peace plan is not the issue here but rather that the peace proposals ignore the free and willful participation of people. While the peace initiatives advanced by the political parties both inside and outside Afghanistan may reflect a genuine concern for Afghan civilians, nevertheless, these initiatives are not guided by the Afghan people’s voice because they have not invited this voice to participate in the dialog for peace. A workable alternative for a peaceful solution in Afghanistan requires that the Afghan communities inside and outside participate in a mechanism that enables them to voice their will. History shows that there has been such a mechanism in Afghanistan, the mechanism of Loya Jirgah implemented at the local and national level has been a workable one. Unfortunately, the ruling dynasties and the political parties abused this mechanism many times. These abuses reduced the mechanism of Loya Jirgah to ceremony rather than an aggressive alternative for national problems.

Indeed, the Taliban and the opposition leadership, in cooperation with Afghans abroad, are able to play the most significant role in the formation of a Loya Jirgah in which the representatives of the local communities and the Afghans from abroad would be able to participate. The Taliban and the opposition leaders and activists should not fear the formation of a Loya Jirgah, but rather should promote such a national council. Each of these leadership groups proclaim that they have the support of a large number of Afghans all over the country. In this case, they prepare themselves to introduce their candidates in the local and general election for the governmental offices. Such a mechanism would not only enable the people of Afghanistan to realize a peaceful resolution for their homeland, but it would also re-direct their attention and actions to the reconstruction and rehabilitation of their county.

B) The involvement of the neighboring countries, in particular Pakistan and Iran, in the internal affairs of Afghanistan prevents the achievement of peace in this country. These two countries do have many common historical, linguistic and cultural aspects with Afghanistan. Regionally, the fate of these three nations are bonded in many parts, and a peaceful Afghanistan is in the long term interest of both Pakistan and Iran. These two countries should be aware now that their support of one faction against the other has not only jeopardized their interest, it has also squandered large percentages of their resources, and in the long run, invites the hatred and resentment of the Afghan nation. During the course of the civil war, the large input of Pakistan and Iran in support of the warring factions has had a negative output, thereby exacerbating the devastation of Afghanistan. It is the responsibility of the Afghan political groups who are receiving aid from Pakistan and Iran to use this aid for the salvation of their people. Only the activists and leadership of these groups can convert the negative input of their supporters into a positive impact. In this case, Afghans should blame no one except them selves.

C) The passive position of the international communities is another major factor that serves as a barrier to peace in Afghanistan. From the first year of civil war, the important role and serious activities of the United Nations representatives in Afghanistan has fallen under the influence of the neighboring countries, in particular Pakistan. As a result, the UN active role in Afghanistan has a passive result which has not only failed to achieve a peaceful settlement, it also has reduced, dramatically, the level of trust of the Afghans for UN activities. This is one of the main reasons that the UN changes often its representative in Afghanistan without getting a fruitful outcome. This change of representatives is like one running around a circle again and again with no agenda and enforcement to exit.

Among the other international players, in particular, the United States, has played a passive role for a peaceful settlement that has caused the civil war to continue until now. The U. S. role in the process of peace and reconstruction of Afghanistan is very crucial. The wishful activities of Senator H. Brown in 1996 and the significant and active role of Bill Richardson, the US ambassador to the UN are the most two remarkable examples of US involvement in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of the former Soviets. The American government is not certain on its position over Afghanistan, and the current leadership is far from understanding the reality inside Afghanistan. The reason for such uncertainty by Mr. Clinton’s Administration on Afghanistan is rooted in the two following factors:

1) After the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, the U. S. government recognized the Pakistani government under Gen. Zia-ul-Haqh, as its closest ally in the region. The U. S. government not only massively supported the Pakistan involvement in Afghanistan, it also gave Pakistan free hands to implement the U. S. policy in Afghanistan. In this case, the Pakistan Intera-Intelligence Service (ISI) became the main source of information for the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). This development changed the nature of the information reached by the U. S. leaders from a first hand and accurate to second hand and inaccurate information. A good example of this change is the U. S. military attack on Afghanistan soil, in which the U. S Marine Forces, hit Afghanistan with numerous Tomahawk cruise missiles in August 11, 1998.  This U. S. military attack was very controversial with administration’s policy in the last nine years after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. The current development inside Afghanistan and the involvement of non-Afghan activists using Afghan soil for their political and military activities, is not an overnight creation, and this development and involvement is the result of many years of a bloody civil war in Afghanistan. The U. S leaders need to change its engagement in Afghanistan to help the peace process and the establishment of a national government in this country. Indeed, the years of civil war have proved that the Afghanistan tragedy is not an isolated development and the international community can not close its eyes from the suffering of a nation. The current dilemma in Afghanistan was created by international involvement and it will be solved only with the help of the international community. Except that, as every day passes, the international community has to pay a greater price for neglecting Afghanistan. We are hopeful that the U. S. will have a positive impact and involvement for a peace initiative in this war ruined country. Hopefully, the mission started by Senator Hank Brown in June 1996 and continued by Mr. Bill Richardson who visited Afghanistan in April 17, 1998, matures into a new developmental path to help regional stability and peace in Afghanistan.

2) The absence of an alternative which considers the regional and international development for a peace initiative by Afghans is another reason for the passive involvement of international community and the U. S. uncertainty over Afghanistan. Most of the proposals issued by the Afghans consist of two common problems:

A) The planners approached the issue of peace and the establishment of a national government from a ultra-nationalistic view, in which they closed their eyes to the importance of the regional and international development in the last two decades.

B) The planners are influenced by the non-Afghan regional and international elements, and they were not able to see the national interests of Afghan people. These two reasons have not only caused the disintegration of Afghan politicians and a hostile political behavior toward one another, they have also greatly reduced their positive impact on the international communities, in particular, in the circles of U. S. leaders. Hopefully, the Afghan politicians will open their eyes to the current regional and international development and will encourage the positive and constructive engagement of American leaders for the implementation of peace in Afghanistan. Indeed, these positive activities by the Afghans will impact the foreign policy of Mr. Clinton’s administration to push forward the peace process in Afghanistan. We should not forget that the Afghanistan tragic dilemma is not only an Afghan problem, it is a dilemma that is connected in many ways to regional and international communities. Therefore, this dilemma requires an international effort to change the nature and the impact of the above three main factors that have made peace unattainable in Afghanistan. Afghans are the main responsible force for such an effort to achieve peace and rebuild their country. Therefore, concentration on these three main issues can not only unify their activities it can also give hope and support to commence construction and developmental projects as soon as possible.

 
CIVIL WAR: AN ECONOMIC DISASTER FOR AFGHANISTAN

Neamatollah Nojumi

Almost ten years ago, when the Soviet army pulled out of Afghanistan, one could see on the tired faces of men, women and children in Afghanistan the cheerful expressions for peace, security and prosperity. However, the eruption of civil war and its brutalities erased that cheerful expression from and violently destroyed the whatever remained of the country and nation after the Soviet invasion 1979-89.

In 1996, an intra-governmental agreement was made between Turkmanistan, Kazakhstan and Pakistan and CentGas, the oil consortium led by UNOCAL, a California-based international corporation, for the development of a gas and oil pipeline through Afghanistan. Many Afghans believed that this development would convince their political leaders who were engaged in armed conflicts to begin to approach a peaceful settlement. Instead, this proposed pipeline increased the competition between Afghanistan’s neighboring countries, in particular Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran, and as a result, the regional competition over the control and influence of the pipeline proposal fueled the civil war and altered the delicate balance of power in Afghanistan.

The pipeline project is rooted in the burgeoning interest in those Central Asian countries that have vast natural resources well beyond their domestic needs. Vital to the economic and industrial development of these countries is their ability to export their natural resources to international markets. And, because these newly independent nations are landlocked, Afghanistan emerged as the quickest, shortest, and most economically efficient highway for Central Asian exports and imports.

Figure (1), the oil reserves would pass via Afghanistan.  


 

Source: UNOCAL

According to the UNOCAL proposal, a 48-inch-diameter pipeline will extend 790 miles (1,271 km) to the Afghanistan-Turkmenistan border, generally follow the Herat-to- Kandahar Road through Afghanistan, cross the Pakistan border in Quetta, and terminate in Multan. Later, another 400 miles of gas-line will connect Pakistan to India. The oil pipeline will build on the same route until Quetta, then it will extend to the port of Karachi on the Arabian Sea. The estimated cost of the project is US$1.9 billion for the portion from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and an additional US$600 million for the extension to India.


Afghanistan can play a significant role in connecting Central Asia, in particular the Caspian resources, to international markets. "The Caspian is the center of the last great oil rush of this century, laps across a huge mine, liquid gold. Some 200 billion bbl., or 10% of the earth’s potential oil reserves, which cost at today’s prices up to US$4 trillion." Turkmenistan is ranked the fourth largest natural gas reserve in the world. The proposed pipeline would connect the Caspian Sea, Western Siberia, Kazakistan to Pakistan, India, and the Asian pacific countries. The existing pipeline which connects the Central Asian oil to the Novoressisk Russian port on the Black Sea does not have the capacity ever to increase oil production in the region. Further, using the Russian pipeline mixes the Central Asian oil with a low quality oil stream coming from Russia. Any reduction in the quality of the Central Asian oil, which contains high gravity and low sulfur, is an enormous loss for these countries.

The high growth rate of the population in Pakistan and India and the industrial boom in the Asian Pacific region increased the demand for crude oil. This increase created a significant market for the Central Asian suppliers. According to UNOCAL studies, this demand will increase the exports of oil with a good price in the next 15 years. Therefore, traditional oil export by tanker-ships will be very limited. The tanker traffic in the Black Sea routes crossing the Bosphorus and the Baltic route via the Straits of Denmark is already near its limit. In this case, the proposed pipelines through Afghanistan and Pakistan would balance the traffic in the Black and Baltic Seas. The pipeline would also provide much greater financial resources for the Central Asian countries and a faster import for the Asian Pacific market.

Figure (2) Market for Central Asian natural gas and oil after passing Afghanistan.


Source: UNOCAL

 

The Main Obstacle to the Implementation of this Project:

The civil war in Afghanistan is the main obstacle which not only frustrates the oil consortiums, in particular UNOCAL, it also destroys a golden opportunity for the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan. Continued fighting between the Taliban and the opposition troops has been associated with those who are against the prosperity of Afghan nation. Because of this bloody armed conflict and power game, none of these groups has a practical proposal to achieve the pipeline project. Unfortunately, responses by these groups are loaded with politics, rather than efforts and ideas for long term reconstruction and economic development of the country.

Figure (3) Supply routes from western Siberia, southern Caspian, northern Caspian, Uzbekistan conjunct in Turkmenistan and passes through Afghanistan and Pakistan. 

Source: UNOCAL

The pipeline project is one important opportunity for economic development. It will "deliver an estimated US$ 50 to US$ 100 million a year in transit fees to Afghanistan as well as provide(s) gas in Afghanistan itself." Additionally, the project will stimulate business, attract investments, reinforce regional cooperation, enhance trade and communication, employ thousands of local people, and improve living standards of the region. For Afghanistan, implementation of the pipelines would serve as a spring board to facilitate the country’s transition from a war economy to a productive, growing economy . Providing gas, a clean-burning energy for the Herat and Kandahar provinces, will help the small industries and improve the environment. A big portion of the population in these provinces heavily depends on wood fuel which has caused a gradual deforestation of the area. Using natural gas will save the green environment, and it will improve agricultural production. Also, there is a possibility that northern Afghanistan’s gas resources would be connected to the Turkmenistan pipeline via Uzbekistan, which could result in greater financial stability for Afghanistan.

The prosperity of the pipeline project depends solely on an internationally recognizable, broad-based government in Afghanistan. The absence of such a government caused the international financial institutions, like the World Bank, to stop financing the project. Without such a financial resource, the completion of the pipelines would be just a dream. The position of the financial institutions has changed the position of UNOCAL. The latest UNOCAL official statements suggests, "UNOCAL will not conduct business with any party in Afghanistan until peace is achieved and a government recognized by international lending agencies is in place. We have neither signed nor negotiated any business deals with any faction within Afghanistan." According to the Center for Afghanistan Study at University of Nebraska, UNOCAL will stop funding the programs which train young Afghans to work in the construction of the pipelines in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Afghanistan observers state that Pakistani elements lobbying UNOCAL to stop funding this kind of program, because the Crescent Steel and Allied Products, Ltd., a Pakistani international corporation which has a share of 3.89% in the pipeline project will provide the skilled labor for the construction of the pipelines in Afghanistan.

At the same time, there are many other circles in Washington, DC who try to gain the support of the Clinton Administration for the construction of a different route. Among others, Mr. Roger Tamraz, an influential and well connected diplomat whose 1996 contribution to the presidential campaign was challenged by the Senate is lobbying for the Caspian project. This project aims to run a pipeline through the Caspian Sea to connect Central Asia’s resources to Azerbaijan, and then via Turkey to the Mediterranean Sea. Mean while, a dozen US former high-ranking state officials like former Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, former Treasure, Secretary Lloyd Bentsen, John Sununu, George Bush’s chief of staff, and former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski are very active in the Caspian oil and gas projects. Mr. Z. Brzezinski, a consultant for Amoco, "has long been a mentor to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Mr. Z. Brzezinski has criticized the White House for years that the U.S. was making a strategic mistake in paying so little attention to the new central Asian nations."

In August 1997, Albright and her top senior State Department sat in a full-dress CIA briefing on the region. The CIA, was obligated to set up a special task force to monitor the region’s politics and wealth. Soon, covert CIA officers, some well-trained petroleum engineers, traveled through southern Russia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to sniff out potential oil reserves. When policy makers heard the agency’s report, Albright concluded that working to mold the area’s future was "one of the most exciting things that we can do." Washington wants the Caspian Sea natural resources to flow through many pipelines and via different directions to avoid a shut down by a country in the region. At this moment the export of oil is done largely through the Russian pipelines, but the U.S. supports the construction of the giant pipeline via Turkey to the Mediterranean Sea to minimize the Russian influence. Turkey is a U.S. ally and a NATO member; therefore the White House feels more secure.

 

Figure (4) New Proposed Pipelines: One would avoid Chachnia, second would runs under the Caspian Sea and continue via Azerbaijan and Turkey to the Mediterranean Sea. (Click on picture to see a larger image.)

Source: Time, May 4, 1998

 

The oil pipeline development is not an easy task for the U.S. and its allies in the region. Iran argues that running a pipeline via Iran to the Persian Gulf is the most efficient way, and the Iranian governmental circles try to lobby the project with the UNOCAL’s rival companies or gain the U.S. green light for recognition by international financial institutions. In his interview with Scott MacLeod in Tehran the Iranian adviser to the minister of petroleum, Mr. Hossein Kazempour Ardebili, said, " We have our hands in the Caspian Sea and our feet in the Persian Gulf, the simplest outlet to this energy is to construct the pipeline via Iran." Also, Iran cites treaties with the Soviet Union dating back to 1921 and 1940 which declare the Caspian Sea a common lake between the two countries. Thus, in any oil development, Iran has to get 20% of the profits, and if any decision does not concern its interests, Iran will veto such a decision and consider it an illegal activity. It is not only the Iranian government that pushes the idea of constructing the pipeline via Iran, some oil companies also support this idea. For example, "a senior Western oil executive stated, "’We’d sign with the Iranians. In this part of the world, they are by far the most trustworthy partners for a pipeline deal. Terrorism? Who’s going to blow up their own pipeline?’"

Three major factors played against the idea of connecting the Caspian gas and oil via Iran:

1) On April 1, 1998 more than 200 executives and experts from the region’s oil consortiums attended a conference in Almaty, capital of Kazakhstan. In this conference a French oil company cited its study on constructing a pipeline via Iran which cost the same as the one via Turkey. This study changed the attention from the north- south route to east-west via Turkey.

2) Azerbaijan President Heydar Aliyev was among the first regional leaders who thought the east-west line was more secure. In a joint communiqué with President Clinton, Niyazov, the Turkmenistan President affirmed that he was leaning toward an east-west gas and oil line under the Caspian Sea. This affirmation was a part of the U.S. plan which was pushed for a long time by many governmental and non-governmental lobbyists.

3) The United States diplomatic and official confrontation with Iran completed the circle against the idea of constructing a pipeline via Iran. Now, the White House is waiting to get the final word from the Baku-based consortiums who will have a huge conference in October 1998, to decide which route they should be support. Until October, between the oil companies, the regional countries and Washington, we will witness the most intense business-diplomatic activities in this century.


The Afghan political leadership has to wake up from this frenzied animosity against one another, and open their eyes to the possibility of regional and international development. The Taliban and the opposition’s representatives in the United States are responsible for informing their leaders inside Afghanistan. The political leaders in Afghanistan should learn from the years of bloodshed and the destruction of their country that all the years of war and conflict have proved that solving problems through military activities is not possible. The loss of thousands of innocent young Afghans under the name of Talib and the thousands more under the name of Sarbaz in the killing field of civil war did not provide the leadership of Taliban and the opposition with what they were seeking.

The chance for Afghanistan is very slim, and time is very short. Afghanistan not only does not have any representative in all of these crucial developments in the region, this country also does not have a voice. The neighboring countries do not have the responsibility and the legal right to represent Afghanistan. The Afghans must cooperate with each other in any possible way without the outside interfering.  It is correct that achieving peace in Afghanistan is not an easy task, but if the Afghans from abroad and inside the country put a cooperative effort together through publications, broadcasting, Internet sites and, in particular, intra-Afghan dialogue, the outcome will have an important impact on the process of peace in this war-ruined country.


Many Afghanistan observers believe that if the Afghan leaders are able to reach a peaceful settlement, the chance for the construction of the pipelines via Afghanistan is great. The main reason is that the Afghan link is less expensive (compared to) the Iran and Turkey links. According to the French oil studies in the region, the construction of a pipeline via Iran will cost US$ 4 billion, and an east-west pipeline via Turkey has the same cost. Building the pipeline in either direction will take almost five years, which means the actual export will take place at the end of the year 2004. Additionally, the Turkey link will pass through the Turkish Kurdistan, which is under the influence of the Kurdistan Kommunist Party (KKP). Without an agreement and, cooperation of the KKP, the security of the pipeline via Turkey is very fragile. The influence of Iran and President Sadam Hussein among the Kurds in Iran and Iraq is obvious. Both of these governments are able to create serious obstacles to the security of the pipeline. Meanwhile, the Russian pipeline also runs through Chechnya, where the anti-Russian armed separatists are very active. These armed groups have the ability to cut off the pipeline at will.
   

In contrast, building the pipeline via Afghanistan will cost less than US$ 2 billion and take two years. If Afghans are able to achieve peace and a joint proposal for the pipeline by the end of 1998, the actual export of oil and gas would take place at the end of year 2000. In this case, the representative of the Afghan government would be able to participate in oil and gas development in the region. Then, he can assure the security of the project to the oil companies and the international lending institutions. The Afghan government can also bargain for a greater share in and benefit from this project. Because of the civil war in Afghanistan and the absence of an internationally recognized government, the oil companies do not have any other solution than to abandon Afghanistan and construct the Turkey link at a greater cost. It’s on the Afghan leaders outside and inside, in particular the Taliban and the opposition, to promote peace and allow people to form a mechanism that would enable them to establish a broad based, internationally recognized government. Achieving peace and the establishment of such a government is the only key that can open the door for the implementation of the pipeline project. This would also reduce the destructive interference of some governmental circles in neighboring countries.

Indeed, if millions of innocent Afghans lost their lives in the two decades of wars, many more will lose their lives in the darkness of regional and international isolation from diseases, hunger and natural disasters. In this case, Afghanistan will remain a poor underdeveloped country for many more generations, and those who are responsible for the continuation of the civil war will be in the trial of history before god and our future generations.

 
Please send your comments & thoughts to info@afghan.org