James Wan & Alice Barnes

EDGE Fall 2004

Professor Lusignan

US involvement in world politics: Venezuela and Afghanistan

Introduction

In this paper we will seek to investigate official US interference in the politics and

policies of selected foreign countries. We have chosen to research this topic by focusing on

two main case studies. The first case study we will look at will be Venezuela. In our

research on Venezuela we will assess US involvement in the series of events that led up to

the recent general election and the tensions between President Hugo Chavez and the US

government. We will investigate the allegations against the US government of covertly

supporting the opposition to President Chavez and of generally trying to overthrow the

President and interfere in Venezuelan politics. In order to provide support for the

allegations against the US government we will be highlight some examples of previous US

intervention in the politics of various other South American and Latin American countries.

The other country we will analyse is Afghanistan and in our research on Afghanistan we

will also look at certain other key countries involved in the dispute over the oil of the

Caspian region. We have chosen these two countries as our case studies because we can

contrast the very different approaches of the US government to the two areas. Although in

both cases there is substantial evidence that the US government has acted to influence the

Wan & Barnes 2

politics of a country in order benefit the US, there are very clear differences in the tactics

used by the US in each example.

In Venezuela the US interference has been far more covert than it has been in

Afghanistan. An obvious difference between the two situations is that the US has actually

gone so far as to use military force to overthrow the Taliban government of Afghanistan

whereas in Venezuela it has been restricted to using less blatant methods to try to depose

President Chavez. What does not appear to change however is the fact that the US

government has attempted to hide the real reasons why they have sought to alter the

politics of these foreign countries. Also, another constant factor in many US interventions

in worldwide democracy, oil, is hugely important in both of these cases. In this paper we

will endeavour to uncover the truth behind the actions of the US government; why they

officially say that it is necessary for them to take action and the real reasons why they have

done so. We will also seek to identify the factors that enable the US to behave in such a

manner, for example, how the vast majority of mainstream US media works as a tool for

the government rather than actually reporting the truth and, how the US government uses

propaganda to cloud the vision of the US people.

Firstly we will closely examine the Venezuelan situation, the background of US-

South/Latin American relations, the policies of President Chavez and why they should

concern the US government, the allegations of US support for the opposition party and

general attempts to disrupt Chavez’s government and, the US media’s coverage of events.

Following this we will turn our attention to the Caspian region and primarily Afghanistan,

Wan & Barnes 3

and seek to draw many comparisons and highlight some important contrasts between the

two areas.

I would like to add at this time the acknowledgement that the US is by no means

alone in the behaviour of meddling in other countries’ affairs. The UK, France, Germany

and Spain among others are also guilty of interference however, in this investigation we

have chosen to focus our attention solely on the US.

Examples of US interference in South/Latin American countries

Unsurprisingly the US government denies any undercover, underhand attempts to

influence Venezuelan politics. President Chavez is convinced that the US government is

trying to orchestrate his downfall and although he claims he has evidence nothing has been

produced as yet. The lack of concrete evidence of any dubious US involvement in

Venezuela should not, however, be viewed as proof of the US’s innocence. The US

government has a track record of interfering in the politics of various other South/Latin

American countries. Tellingly, in many of the cases that I will now highlight not only did

the US censor and manipulate the media coverage of events to hide the real truth, but also,

they often denied any wrongdoing and distorted the facts of what actually occurred. The

three cases I will look at briefly are Guatemala, Panama and, Nicaragua. Although these

cases are not directly related to the events in Venezuela they do highlight the US’s attitude

towards the governments of South/Latin American countries and how they believe they can

treat their democratically elected leaders.

Wan & Barnes 4

Guatemala

In 1954 the US provided financial aid and weapons to the Guatemalan army to

enable them to overthrow then president Colonel Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán. The US did not

agree with Guzmán’s policies, which included the redistribution of land belonging to the

United Fruit Company. The United Fruit Company monopolised the country’s banana

exports and was ultimately a law unto itself. Why should the government of Guatemala’s

attempts to disrupt The United Fruit Company’s dominance concern the US? Perhaps

because, “Secretary of State John Foster Dulles' law firm had prepared United Fruit's

contracts with Guatemala; his brother, CIA Director Allen Dulles, belonged to United

Fruit's law firm; John Moors Cabot, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American

Affairs, was the brother of a former United Fruit president and, President Eisenhower's

personal secretary was married to the head of United Fruit's Public Relations

Department.”[ThirdWorldTraveller]. Although, of course, it is not possible to prove that

these connections influence the US behaviour the fact remains that the US supported a

military coup, which succeeded in overthrowing a democratically elected president.

Panama

In December 1989 the US government launched a military attack on Panama.

Several hundred civilians were killed and countless more were left homeless. The US

claimed that this military action was necessary to remove from power Panamanian leader

General Manual Noriega and bring him to the US to stand trial on drug trafficking charges.

The actual motivation behind the US invasion was “the destruction of the Panamanian

Wan & Barnes 5

Defense Forces which, under Noriega, had grown more nationalistic and less responsive to

US interests” (TheWinds). The US not only sought to hide the real reason behind the

attack but also the true nature of what took place, to ensure this they enforced

“unprecedented press control in Panama where all forms of media were shut down,

newspapers, radio and television.”(TheWinds). The invasion of Panama was by no means

the first instance of US interference in Panamanian political affairs. Indeed General

Noriega was an employee of the CIA before he became the leader of Panama, with full US

backing, and he was, in fact, still on the CIA payroll for the first 3 years of his leadership.

(Hinson) The US government’s cover-up of their behaviour in this example was, in part,

made possible by their control of the US media which “was happy to display the distorted

picture which the powerful interests behind the scene dictated.”(TheWinds)

Nicaragua

Over a period of years the US government provided huge financially support for

the contras in Nicaragua. The contras were a force officially known as the Nicaraguan

Democratic Force who opposed the then government. They used brutal and destructive

tactics to disrupt the government and terrorise the people of Nicaragua. The US supported

their cause, as they did not like the so-called Marxist policies of the ruling party. The US

was accused of altering the outcome of the Nicaraguan election by offering voters $40 for

voting for the US backed candidate (WakeUp). The US’s behaviour in Nicaragua was

condemned by The World Court who ruled that “the US, by training, arming, equipping,

financing and supplying the contra forces…and aiding military and paramilitary activities

Wan & Barnes 6

against Nicaragua, has acted…in breach of its obligation under customary international law

not to intervene in the affairs of another state.” (WakeUp) Crucially for our investigation,

the US’s behaviour was described by critics as a “blueprint for successful US intervention

in the Third World” (WakeUp). This is an extremely significant quote because it highlights

the difference between the US tactics in Venezuela and Afghanistan. The US cannot use

such extreme measures in Venezuela as it used in Nicaragua and Afghanistan partly, as

will be explained later, because Venezuela is not a Third World country

These three examples were intended to show a history of US interference in other

countries’ affairs. Numerous other examples of US activity in this area could have been

chosen, for example Honduras and El Salvador. Based on this evidence it does not seem at

all inconceivable that the US could have intervened in Venezuelan affairs.

Chavez’s policies that meet with US disapproval

President Hugo Chavez

Since his election in 1998 with an unprecedented 57% of the vote President Chavez

has continually frustrated the US government with his policies. He has spoken out against

the US on a number of crucial issues including free trade and oil. He also maintains a close

friendship with the Cuban leader Fidel Castro and has sought to create a stronger

Wan & Barnes 7

allegiance between their countries. Obviously the US government does not wish to see that

happen as any such union could prove damaging to US trade interests in the area.

One example of Chavez’s nationalistic stance can be found in his position on the

Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), a proposal to create the world’s largest trading

zone. Chavez claims that the FTAA would only benefit the US and he called on the other

countries of the Americas to join forces as “Only united can we break the chains that

oppress us.” Chavez claims the FTAA is the latest incarnation of economic "colonialism"

and vows to put any deal to a popular vote (Olson). Venezuela’s chief FTAA negotiator

Victor Alvarez highlighted the hypocrisy of the US in that “while the Bush Administration

was preaching free trade to their dark-skinned compatriots south of the border, the USA

itself was facing one of the largest penalties in World Trade Organization history for

raising tariffs on steel products”(Palast). These raised tariffs have already closed two steel

plants in Venezuela. As usual Chavez does not hold back his feelings on this issue stating

that the “FTAA is the path to hell”(Palast). The refusal of Chavez to sign the FTAA

agreement is a source of much frustration to the US government.

Chavez has also very much annoyed the US government with his alteration of the

Venezuelan policy on oil production and export and Venezuela’s spearheading of OPEC.

OPEC (the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) controls the production of,

which ultimately plays a huge role in determining the price of, oil from all its member

states. Prior to Chavez, Venezuela “had gained notoriety among OPEC members for

habitually exceeding the OPEC production quotas and breaking ranks. This suited

Wan & Barnes 8

Washington as it kept oil prices down.”(Palast2) Now, Chavez has now nearly doubled all

royalties that foreign companies have to pay on Venezuelan oil from 16% to 30%. This has

seriously hurt the many US companies such as Exxon and Shell that operate in Venezuela.

In addition to this Chavez has cut Venezuelan oil production to fall in accordance with

OPEC regulations. This has obviously caused an increase in oil prices. Venezuela accounts

for near to 15% of all oil imports to the US, making the third largest importer of oil to the

US, and therefore, these policy changes have severely impacted the US (Chandrasekhar).

This factor alone separates Venezuela from Afghanistan, as Chavez is aware that the US is

reliant on Venezuelan oil. At a recent rally Chavez stated that, “if (the US Government)

tried to invade Venezuela or impose a trade blockade against his country, he would shut off

Venezuelan oil supplies to the United States.”(Fletcher). Chavez is clearly aware of the

power his country commands because of its vast oil resources and appears to be

determined to end foreign exploitation of those resources.

Wan & Barnes 9

As mentioned earlier Chavez has closely allied himself with Cuban leader Fidel

Castro. His association with Castro obviously does not meet with US approval. He has

given Cuba benefits including agreeing to “allow Cuba to pay for part of its oil imports

from Venezuela with goods and services”. Also, Chavez has been quoted as stating that,

“Cuba and Venezuela are, in effect, "one team."” He has also described Castro as “one of

his closest political allies and personal friends”. (Crespo) 

Chavez has also angered the US on many occasions with his open criticism of

President Bush and his government. Following September 11th he criticised President

Bush’s “you are with us or against us” statement. He also spoke out “against the killing of

innocent civilians in Afghanistan in the United States' so-called war on terror” (Crespo).

Rather amusingly and perhaps refreshingly Chavez has also been quoted as, calling Bush

an “asshole”, Condoleezza Rice “a meddling illiterate” and accusing the US government of

“sticking its nose in”(Pipeline).

US Government and media portrayal of Chavez

Obviously the US government keeps a very close eye indeed on the relationship

between Castro and Chavez. Certainly if Chavez is as close as reports suggest to Castro

then the US could have some reason to be worried however, the media and government

does not hesitate to place massive emphasis on this friendship. Reading reports from

various US media and government sources one cannot help but notice a familiar pattern of

what can only be described as scare tactics designed to instill fear in the US public. The

other very obvious instance of the use of these tactics occurred following the September

Wan & Barnes 10

11th attack with regards to the country of Afghanistan and the entire Middle East region. In

that case, as will be explained in the second part of this investigation, the government used

the media to create an atmosphere of panic that enabled the US to invade Afghanistan and

later Iraq. The media coverage of the events in Venezuela is nothing like that in

Afghanistan but nonetheless one can certainly sense a clear stance that various US media

sources have taken. One media reports claimed that Chavez is turning his “oil rich country

into a base for international terrorism” (Crespo). Another, by US News entitled Terror

Close to Home, explained how Chavez’s connection the Castro meant that the US should

expect terrorist attacks to be launched from Venezuela. The theme of associating Chavez

with terrorism is also common, the Chicago Tribune having accused Chavez of “praising

Osama bin Laden.”(Coen), a totally false claim. The reports in the US media on the

military coup of April 2002 also revealed a worrying bias. Newsday of Long Island ran the

headline “Chavez's Ouster Is No Great Loss”, and even the normally reliable New York

Times praised the coup claiming that, “Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a

would-be dictator”(Coen). This is not to suggest however that all US media sources are

anti-Chavez, the New York Times has run various articles questioning the US policies and

behaviour in Venezuela, as has the Washington Post. However, the majority of US news

reporting either written or televised emphasises the danger Chavez could present to the US.

Members of the US government have been quoted numerous times making what

can be described as undemocratic statements regarding President Chavez. Following the

2002 coup a senior member of the administration was quoted as saying “He was

Wan & Barnes 11

democratically elected. He won a majority of votes. Legitimacy is something that is

conferred not just by a majority of votes, however.” (NygaardNotes). Once Chavez

returned to power after overcoming the coup the US National Security Advisor

Condoleezza Rice commented that Chavez had been “moving, frankly, in the wrong

direction for quite a long time”. She added: “I hope that Hugo Chavez takes the message

that his people sent him, that his own policies are not working for the Venezuelan people,

that he's dealt with them in a high-handed fashion.”(Campbell). President Bush himself

was also quoted as saying he hoped Chavez had “learned the lesson”, the Venezuelan coup

had given him (Campbell). The US Government was also shockingly quick to accept the

resignation of President Chavez whereas, other national leaders such as President Fox of

Mexico, were immediate in their condemnation of the military coup (Campbell).

Venezuelan opinions on Chavez

The purpose of this paper is by no means to portray President Chavez as an ideal,

faultless leader. Certainly he has made mistake and enemies, both in Venezuela and

abroad, in his time in power. Aside from the obvious tension with the US government there

are many other leaders who do not agree entirely with his policies. This said he survived

the recall election and retains the undeniable support of the poor population of Venezuela.

He has been democratically elected one two occasions with 57% and 58% of the vote and

that is more than can be said for President Bush.

The media of Venezuela is well known to be anti-Chavez. Wealthy Venezuelan

families own many of the largest broadcasting corporations and they would dearly like to

Wan & Barnes 12

see Chavez and his leftist polices defeated. The El Nacional group of newspapers does not

hide its opposition to Chavez nor do many other leading media groups. The owners are

supposedly angered by Chavez’s “alleged abuses of press freedom” however many claim

that they are in fact simply using the media as tools in the elitists’ fight against Chavez.

Indeed, the role the media played in, as Chavez alleged, inciting and misleading the public

during the 2002 coup attempt appears to be undeniable, during the coup one media tycoon

was reported to have told the coup leaders that “We can’t guarantee you the loyalty of the

army but we can promise you the support of the media.”(The Economist). The morning

after Chavez was removed, temporarily, from power the El Nacional newspaper, making

no attempt to hide its allegiances, lead with the celebratory headline, "It's over!"(Ceaser).

Aside from the military coup Chavez also faced enormous adversity during the

general strike of December 2001. Businesses across Venezuela ceased work in a reaction

to 49 laws that Chavez had recently passed. By Venezuelan law it was within his power to

have acted in this way but it was, nonetheless, a dramatic step to have taken. Many of the

laws concerned land reform and oil production and most companies claimed they were,

“hostile to private investment”(Easton). The strike was also called in support of “the

PDVSA managers' protest against a new board of directors seen as appointees of President

Chavez”(BBC News). The PDVSA is the largest oil production company in Venezuela and

is governed by, as stated in their website, an “Alignment and subordination to the State”.

Although the strike was, for the most part, peaceful it threatened to cripple the Venezuelan

economy and succeeded in bring oil production to a virtual standstill. Eventually after

Wan & Barnes 13

seven weeks President Chavez succeeded in ending the strike. After time public support for

the strike waned with Venezuela’s poor, loyal to Chavez, taking to the streets and

demonstrating in support of the leader. Chavez used drastic measures to crush the strike

including the sacking of 5,000 striking oil workers. As I have mentioned before Chavez’s

methods have been questioned on numerous occasions however, the fact remains that he is

a democratically elected leader and a general strike should not be used to remove him from

power. (McDermott)

The result of the general strike and numerous political protests for and against

President Chavez was the calling of a recall election. It was hoped that this would put an

end to the political conflicts that had become commonplace in Venezuela. Early

predictions showed that President Chavez would lose a recall election. The majority of the

media sources, who as already explained, were extremely anti-Chavez, were claiming that

the opposition would be victorious. Also voicing their support for the opposition were

many of the large corporations who had been involved in the general strike. Amid concerns

over possible corruption independent observers from The Carter Centre for conflict

resolution were present. Ultimately they would be required to verify the results as first the

opposition and then Chavez both claimed victory. However, it soon because apparent, that

Chavez had indeed survived the recall election with a massive 58% of the vote.

Chavez’s victory in the election can be attributed largely to his huge popularity

amongst Venezuela’s poor. He himself came from a poor background and throughout his

political career has focused on using government resources to benefit the most needy

Wan & Barnes 14

Venezuelans. After his victory in the election he vowed to continue his “Bolivian

revolution”. As part of his revolution Chavez has used money from oil exports to fund

programmes for the poor including “literacy, health care, job training, land reform,

subsidized food, small loans.”(Benjamin). Critics of Chavez claim that he has not actually

significantly improved the lives of the poor population. It is true that unemployment sits

just above 14% having risen from 12% in 1998, when Chavez was first elected. However,

the results of the election would seem to speak for themselves and the opposition cannot

deny that whatever President Chavez’s policies may be they have earned him the support

of 58% of the population, which is a massive margin of victory.

Allegations against the US Government

In the previous section I spoke about how Chavez’s policies have “alienated him

from Venezuela's traditional white ruling elite”(Becker), and how this can be seen as one

factor in the coup against him. Whilst it is true that anti-Chavez Venezuelans were behind

the coup, the strike and the recall election, allegations are rife of behind the scenes US

government interference. The main accusation leveled at the US is that they have given

massive financial support to those political parties that oppose Chavez. Obviously the US

government denies any such involvement however, evidence has been produce that would

appear to prove their guilt. Various reputable media sources have reported that “

Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that, in 2002, America

paid more than a million dollars to those political groups in what it claims, as was reported

by the Independent newspaper in March 2004, is an ongoing effort to build democracy and

Wan & Barnes 15

"strengthen political parties"”. The US government does not directly supply this funding, it

comes from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) which is a non-profit

organization designed to promote worldwide democracy. The NED does however receive

all its funding directly from the US government and many claim it is simply a method by

which the US can “routinely meddle in other countries' affairs” (Independent). Much of the

controversy centres on Sumate, a group that, according The Miami Herald, is simply a

“civic organization that promotes voter education, monitors elections and does independent

exit polls”, but according to Chavez and many foreign news sources it is associated with

political parties. On its website the NED does admit funding Sumate, but, only so that they

could “develop materials to educate citizens about the constitutional referendum process

and to encourage citizens to participate”. Other sources suggest however that Sumate’s

actually organized the recall petition against Chavez and used the US government funds to

promote the opposition parties cause.

As highlighted earlier in this paper the US government has many reasons to desire

the removal of Chavez and much evidence has surfaced to support Chavez’s claim that

they are actively seeking his removal. Following the coup “officials at the Organisation of

American States and other diplomatic sources asserted that the US administration was not

only aware the coup was about to take place, but had sanctioned it, presuming it to be

destined for success”(Vulliamy). Chavez has consistently maintained that the US is trying

to overthrow him and had full knowledge of the coup claiming that, “The Government of

Washington is using the money of its people to support not only opposition activities but

Wan & Barnes 16

acts of conspiracy,”(Palast). As a telling side note nearly all of the articles I found

regarding the coup were from non-US news sources. There is very little information to be

found in the US media on the events of April 2002 and when the coup was briefly reported

in the US the actual word “coup” is obviously avoided. Again, this does not provide any

evidence of US guilt, however, it does highlight their general stance and attitude towards

Chavez. Moreover, it once again highlights the extent to which the US media is merely a

voice for the US government.

Conclusion and comparison with Afghanistan

In conclusion this investigation has demonstrated that whilst there remains little

concrete evidence of the US government’s involvement in Venezuela there is much to

suggest that they did indeed interfere in the country’s affairs. Based on the US

government’s track record of meddling in South/Latin American countries one can guess

that there is at least some truth behind the allegations against the US. These allegations

include covertly funding the opposition to Chavez through the NED, having prior

knowledge of the 2002 military coup and even supporting that event. For the most part the

US media simply serves as the voice of the US government and distorts the facts and

manipulates the accounts of events in order to conform to the official government stance.

At no time has this paper sought to suggest that Chavez is a perfect President.

Certainly he has he faults, for example his close friendship with Cuban dictator Fidel

Castro should not be overlooked. That does not however, mean that the US is justified in

Wan & Barnes 17

its constant attempts to over-emphasise this connection nor should it divert attention from

the fact that President Chavez is democratically elected leader and not a dictator.

Many see the efforts of the US to create an atmosphere of fear surrounding Chavez,

playing off the events of September 11th, as merely a smoke screen for the true issue at

stake in Venezuela, oil. The US would like to see a more pro-US policy concerning oil

exports and they know that Chavez will not give it to them. Therefore, as Chavez claims,

they are seeking ways to remove him from power. This is where the connection with

Afghanistan becomes apparent, as the US removal of the Taliban government has been

closely linked to the Caspian oil reserves. As will be explained in the second half of this

paper, the US government was able to use military force to achieve their goals in

Afghanistan unlike Venezuela. There are various reasons that no such tactic could be use

in Venezuela. For example, there are no terrorists hiding in Venezuela that could provide a

convenient excuse for military action, Venezuela is not a third world country and has far

more power that Afghanistan due to its oil resources and, the US relies on those oil

resources and it is also in the US’s interests to maintain good trade agreements with

Venezuela. Another possible reason, albeit extremely depressing, is that the Western world

would care far more about the death of innocent Venezuelans, with whom we can associate

more easily, than the slaughter of thousands of men, women and children in Afghanistan,

with whom we feel little connection and for whom, evidently, we have little compassion.

Wan & Barnes 18

Afghanistan

If September 11th did not happen, then the United States would not have invaded

Afghanistan. At least that is what Bush would have everyone believe. Bush mistakenly

informs the American public time and time again that once the terrorist threat is over, the

American troops will be withdrawn. Nearly everybody from the supporters of the war to

the local bartender believes this to be the truth, and it isn’t entirely their fault. Bush

administrators have worked arduously to propagate the notion that America must be inside

Afghanistan for a matter of national security. The truth of the matter is that September 11th

and the whole ‘War on Terrorism’ was used as a justification to enter Afghanistan and

check up on their oil situation. Recent tasks such as seeking out Al-Qaida leaders, and

gaining full access to terrorist training camps have acted as a catalyst to American

involvement in the Middle East. Consequently, Bush propagandists have had a field day

spinning the truth to the American public. For example, Secretary of Defense Donald

Rumsfeld said, “September 10th, 2001, was not the last day of world innocence. It was,

however, the last day of America's lack of understanding of a worldwide extremist

movement determined to terrorize, to defeat, to destroy civilized people everywhere

(Rumsfeld 1).” Undoubtedly, there is no way any patriotic American would want to refute

this statement. However, what some people fail to realize is the American government’s

Wan & Barnes 19

hidden agenda in Afghanistan. In this particular case, there is too much clear evidence that

the United States has ulterior motives to be just, coincidence. The vast amount of oil in the

Caspian Sea, Cheney’s statements about the importance of the Caspian in relation to

national security, and the fact that the United States imports over half of its oil from

foreign countries are all supposed coincidences in the War on Terrorism.

The Issue: Oil and the Caspian Sea

The issue of oil and Afghanistan has long been a topic of controversy. The reason being is

that the Caspian Sea area contains a large amount of natural resources, or more

specifically, natural gas and oil. In fact, researchers expect oil production to even surpass

Venezuela, the current leader of South American oil exportation (Caspian 1). Thus, the

potential power that Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan (states of the Caspian)

residents could have is extremely big. Before Vice President Dick Cheney was Vice

President, he was CEO of the oil company, Halliburton and during his reign he stated, “I

cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as

strategically significant as the Caspian (Guardian 1).” The reason that Afghanistan is so

significant is because in order for the oil to benefit the United States, it must be piped

through a country to be

distributed. Other

countries around the

Caspian are not options

because the only

Wan & Barnes 20

countries that can complete this task are Russia and Iran. Both are countries that the

United States has worked diligently to suppress their political and economic growth. It is

distressing however to the United States that Iran is the most desirable route to pipeline oil

out of the Caspian because not only is it the most direct route, but the oil could be

processed in established Iranian oil compounds. The only logical country to pipeline the

oil through would be Afghanistan. For a map of the Caspian Sea and its surrounding areas,

see figure 1. Also, by pipelining the oil through Afghanistan it would allow sales to the

south where the demand for oil is high, as opposed to the west (Europe) where the demand

is low (Guardian 2). For a struggling economy, the largest monetary benefit is always a

primary concern.

The topic of energy is always one of high concern to the United States. The reason

being is obviously that we use an excessive amount of energy compared to other nations.

The United

States

currently

imports

around 51

percent of its

crude oil,

which

amounts to an astonishing 19.5 million barrels daily. By 2020, the Energy Information

Wan & Barnes 21

Administration approximates that the United States will import around 64 percent of its

crude oil, or 25.8 million barrels daily (Hindu 1). The entire Caspian Sea region is

estimated to have around 179 billion barrels of oil in its entirety. In terms of the dollar,

each barrel of oil is worth $25 dollars. Simple math allows one to estimate the value of all

of the oil in Caspian Sea, which amounts to about $4 trillion dollars. The amazing thing is

that oil isn’t even the only natural resource in the Caspian. Natural gas that amounts to

around $1 trillion dollars also resides there. This brings the total value of the Caspian Sea,

including all of its natural resources to over $5 trillion dollars (Energy Basin 1). It is no

wonder the United States is so interested in the region. However though, for obvious

reasons they are not the only country or even company interested.

Throughout the 1990’s, three major projects went underway in an attempt to

produce more oil from Caspian Sea region. Although none in Afghanistan, these

developments were

significant in the fact that

they would allow

previously unrecoverable

oil to be recoverable.

The first of these three

projects happened in

1993 when Chevron

conducted a $20 billion

Wan & Barnes 22

dollar deal in an attempt to aid the development of the Tengiz oil field. This oil field is

estimated to contain anywhere from six to nine billion barrels of oil. The result of this

investment was the joint company named Tengizchevroil. Because this region contains

export pipelines with more being built, Tengizchevroil has steadily increased its production

with a goal of around 750,000 bbl/day in 2010. The second project involves the

Azerbaijan International Oil Consortium (AIOC). In what was nicknamed the ‘deal of the

century,’ Azerbaijan International Oil Consortium bought the rights to three separate oil

fields, Azeri, Chirag, and Gunashli, respectively for eight years. All for the price of $8

billion dollars. These three areas are estimated to contain anywhere from three to five

billion barrels of oil. The final development involves the offshore Kashagan block. The

company that is developing the area is known as the Offshore Kazakhstan International

Operating Company (OKIOC). After initial drilling, estimates of this region are up to a

possible 40 billion barrels (Caspian 3). With all of the developments in the regions

surrounding the Caspian Sea, there is no doubt that once Afghanistan is able to obtain a

stable government, it too will be used to its full potential.

Oil’s Influence on the War on Terrorism

In the world today, oil is one of the most valuable natural resources. In fact, many

Middle Eastern countries survive solely because their land has oil within it. The United

States isn’t very different. Instead of just surviving, the United States is looking to prosper

further by controlling strategic points in the Middle East. In 1981, President Carter’s state

of the union addressed the issue of oil and his point was simple. Denial of safe access to

Wan & Barnes 23

Persian Gulf oil would not only be a threat to national security, but a threat to worldwide

security. In fact, Carter even named the Soviets as the most likely threat to American oil

access in the Persian Gulf, however he did claim that he would protect the surrounding

regions from anything and everything (Carter 1). It is obvious that the United States holds

oil in its highest regard and will go by any means necessary to ensure its continued access

to the Middle East.

In any case, in 1998, in an effort to gain more influence in the Middle East through

oil, the United States supported the Taliban. The reason being that the Taliban was Anti-

Iranian and the United States sought to do everything it could to hurt the Iranians. The

catch was that the once the Taliban was in power, they would have to agree to putting in an

oil pipeline for the United States. A single oil pipeline in Afghanistan could yield around

$100 million dollars in revenues. Irony strikes when the one of the main reasons Osama

Bin Laden even began his terrorist activities was because he realized the United States was

attempting to gain influence in the Middle East through Afghanistan and he wanted to have

no part of it. Interesting how his actions gave the United States an excuse to enter

Afghanistan without fear of question. Irony struck again when Iran released a statement

supporting the United States for their actions against the Taliban and Afghanistan.

In 2001, actions carried out by the United States Special Forces led many to believe

that the Bush administration had a hidden agenda in Afghanistan. The Special Forces team

was reported to have destroyed Iranian oil tankers transporting oil to Afghan cities (War

Wan & Barnes 24

1). The problem was that this had nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden or any sorts of

terrorists.

During the War on Terrorism in Afghanistan, the United States was given military

bases by Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan. The problem with that is that many of the

surrounding countries in Central Asia are questioning the intentions of the United States.

Specifically, they fear a permanent American presence in such a close proximity. Ahmed

Rashid, author of Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil, and Fundamentalism in Central Asia says

there have been rumors that a secret treaty between the United States and Uzbekistan

stating that the United States would be able to have a permanent establishment in their

state (Corporations 2).

With the downfall of the Taliban, the United States placed Hamid Karzai in charge.

Within the past year, President Karzai has attempted to restart negotiations of a possible

pipeline through Afghanistan. On December 9th 2003, the governments of Afghanistan,

Turkmenistan, and Pakistan signed a document to begin work on the pipeline, which has

been wit fully named the Trans-Afghan Pipeline or TAP for short (Afghanistan 1). Even

though this is natural gas news, it is still relevant that the new president of Afghanistan is

working to use Afghanistan to transport the energy resources out of the Caspian Sea. This

most likely was the goal of the United States all along. And by putting Karzai in power;

their goal would more likely be reached.

The Pro-War Viewpoint

Wan & Barnes 25

It can be said that the ‘War on Terrorism’ is actually a war on terrorism and to a

certain extent that is true. The United States would love to find Osama Bin Laden and all

of the Al-Qaeda operatives. In fact, if that had happened before the election, Bush quite

possibly could have won by the biggest margin in history. But, how much does the capture

of Bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda operatives really contribute to national security? The

United States is the most prestigious country in the world and those less fortunate than

America will always hate them. This is especially true when the United States is using its

influence to control one of the only natural resources and source of a struggling economy

in their region.

Recent studies have led many to believe that an oil pipeline in Afghanistan is not

even possible for the United States. In fact, it has already by tried by an oil company by

the name of Unocal. In late 1997, Unocal began negotiating with Afghanistan to begin the

construction of an oil pipeline that would extend from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan

into Pakistan (Unocal 1). The projected specifications for the oil pipeline were 42 inches

in diameter, 1040 miles in length, and carry around 1 million barrels of oil per day. It was

estimated that the project would cost around $2.5 billion dollars (Oil 1). Unfortunately,

Unocal did not end up constructing the oil pipeline because of instability along with a

variety of other reasons . At the time, Afghanistan was in amidst a civil war that tore the

country into two groups, Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, who controls the Taliban and the

United Front, who controls the Islamic State of Afghanistan. Whilst the fighting was

going on, the United States was once again searching for Osama bin Laden. In August of

Wan & Barnes 26

1998, in response to the destruction of two United States embassies, Nairobi and Dar es-

Salaam, the United States bombed training camps near the border of Pakistan (Untitled 1).

As a result, Unocal withdrew from Afghanistan without even starting construction on their

oil pipeline with the reason that the civil instability of Afghanistan made it impossible.

Along with the main cause of Unocal ceasing construction, there were also many

minor reasons as well. The first reason was the pressure of the feminists, led by Eleanor

Smeal and Mavis Leno (Corporations 1). In 1998, the feminists protested the dealings that

Unocal had with the Taliban by picketing outside of Unocal offices. The reason being that

the feminists felt that the Taliban was guilty of ‘gender apartheid.’ Basically the Taliban

suppressed women’s rights to an unbearable extent and needed to be fixed immediately.

Some of the biggest problems the feminists had with the Taliban was that they did not

allow women to read, thus causing the female literacy rate in Afghanistan to be a mere four

percent. Other restrictions that were put on females included not being able to laugh in

public and not being able to walk outside without a male accompaniment (Feminists 1).

Following Unocal’s termination of its construction in Afghanistan, no other oil

companies, not even international have attempted to claim Afghanistan. According to

Ahmed Rahsid, the Unocal situation caused a lot of unrest with a lot of other oil

companies. For obvious reasons, the sentiment in the United States towards oil companies

was sour. Rashid also states that the possible presence of Osama Bin Laden in the vicinity

poses too much of a risk to safely establish ties with Afghanistan (Corporations 1). He

Wan & Barnes 27

does however admit that setting up shop in Afghanistan is on the back of every oil

companies mind because of the vast profit that one could possibly make.

It can be said that the war supporters do have valid points that there is no way the

United States could be scheming for oil, there are still a few arguments left unscathed.

Most of the arguments that war supporters make are from the Afghanistan of the past, still

ruled under the Taliban. Contemporary Afghanistan is governed by the president that the

United States placed there strategically. Oil companies now have recently viewed an

increased stability of the government and may once again attempt to harvest the natural

resources Afghanistan has to offer.

The Impact of US Intervention

Prior to September 11th, the United States along with almost all of the established

nations worldwide were in competition to try to establish themselves as the oil gods of the

Middle East. The United States’ biggest rival was of course Russia. Not only because of

its location of being right next to the Caspian Sea, but because of tensions still left behind

from the Cold War. Former Prime Minister Boris Yeltsin said, “We cannot help seeing the

uproar stirred up in some Western countries over the energy resources of the Caspian.

Some seek to exclude Russia from the game and undermine its interests. The so-called

pipeline war in the region is part of this game (JURIST 1).” Both the United States wanted

a monopoly of the pipelines branching out from the Caspian because of the obvious

monetary benefits.

Wan & Barnes 28

Following the events of September 11th, an article in the New York Times was

published, titled ‘Russia is Becoming an Oil Ally.’ The article states that Russia decided

to be an ally of the United States in the war on terror, and as a result, political ties have

been strengthened. Laurent Ruseckas of Cambridge Energy stated that, “The trend was

already towards a depoliticization of Caspian energy, and this definitely advances that,” in

an effort to show that the United States and Russia were truly becoming allies in the oil

industry as well (Russia 1). The ‘alliance’ could be short-lived however because as

quickly as they became allies, Russia broke the trust of the United States. Russia provided

the United Front with arms and coaxed them to move into Kabul (JURIST 2).

The ‘War on Terrorism’ has had many interesting events occur during its duration.

For example, the Taliban was overthrown. However, what isn’t widely known is that

before it was overthrown, Bush was eager to do business with them. Bush’s ultimatum to

the Taliban in threatening them if they did not turn over Osama Bin Laden was actually a

hidden scheme to separate the two in hopes of befriending the Taliban (Hindu 4). Only

when the ultimatum did not succeed was Bush forced to overthrow the Taliban and set in

motion the plan for a democratic leader.

Regrettably, it is the easy thing to do nowadays to believe that the United States

government is scrupulous in its actions. With all the propaganda thrown at the public from

the Bush administration, it is no wonder people believe that the only reason we are

invading Afghanistan is that we believe they are holding Osama Bin Laden. Sure that is

one of their goals, however obviously not a priority of the United States.

Wan & Barnes 29

Conclusion

The goal of this research paper was to highlight the growing problem of US

interference in worldwide democracy or politics. The two examples we chose to analyse

were picked specifically because they show two very different tactics employed by the US

government. In Afghanistan the US were obviously able to use military force to remove

the Taliban government. During the military campaign in Afghanistan the civilian losses

were huge and yet the US was still able to continue with their actions. The vast majority of

the US media groups and also the US public supported the invasion of Afghanistan and the

general consensus appeared to be that the death of thousands of innocent Afghanis was

merely a necessary evil. The US government used its almost total control of the media to

convince the public that this war was not only justified as it was self-defense following the

attacks of September 11th but also that is was a moral crusade to free the Afghani people

from the terror of the Taliban government. Interestingly the US government had actually

spoken out in support of the Taliban government just a few years prior to September 11th

and had been seeking to cooperate with them on the building of a pipeline from the

Caspian Sea through Afghanistan. The oil of the Caspian sea, as we have hopefully

highlighted in this paper, is the real reason behind the US invasion of Afghanistan. The US

government has deceived the American people using the media and a faux “war on terror”

in an attempt to gain control of Afghanistan and therefore, control of the pipeline route.

The theme of the US government’s need for oil has been a constant throughout this

entire paper. In Venezuela much of the true problem the US has with President Chavez

Wan & Barnes 30

centres around his policies on Venezuelan oil production. These polices have severely hurt

the US which relies on Venezuela for 15% of its oil. The US is also concerned about the

powerful role Venezuela has within OPEC. As we have emphasized during this paper

although the main driving force behind the US involvement in each of these countries

remains the same, oil, the behaviour of the US has been markedly different. The reason

behind that, is much as the US media, which remember is always in the pocket of the US

government, attempts to paint him as one, President Chavez is not a dictator and he has

been democratically elected not once but twice, with massive margins of victory each time.

The US has interfered as much as possible in the democratic processes of Venezuela

providing funding for the opposition party, allegedly supporting the failed military coup of

2002 and continually portraying Chavez as a dictator and villain. They cannot however use

military force in Venezuela because it is a relatively rich and powerful country thanks to its

oil resources. In this example the US is simply forced to accept Chavez’s rule, whereas in

other situations they have been known to wage economical warfare by placing ridiculous

trade restrictions on a country Chavez has already ruled out the option by stating that if the

US does that to Venezuela he will cases all oil exports. Unfortunately for the innocent

men, women and children of Afghanistan they had no such power and so were defenseless

against the brutal US military attack.

Wan & Barnes 31

Works Cited: Alice Barnes, analysis of Venezuela and Latin/South America

“A “killing field” in the Americas: US policy on Guatemala”. Third World Traveller, Nov 2004. Available from World Wide Web: (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/US_Guat.html)

“All the News That's Fit to Print.” New York Times, Apr 2002. Nygaard Notes, Nov 2004. Available from World Wide Web: (http://www.nygaardnotes.org/issues/nn0155.html)

Becker, Mark. “Chavez Wins Referendum.” The Touchstone. Sep 2004. Available from World Wide Web: (http://www.rtis.com/touchstone/oct2004/15.html)

Benjamin, Medea. “Why Hugo Chavez Won a Landslide Victory." Common Dreams. Aug 2004. Available from World Wide Web: (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0817-01.htm)

Campbell, Duncan. “Bush's Bay of Piglets.” The Guardian. Apr 2002.

Ceaser, Mike. “Venezuelan media: 'It's over!'.” BBC News. Apr 2002. The BBC. Sep 2004. Available from World Wide Web: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1926983.stm)

Chandrasekhar, C.P. “The Promise of the Chavez Offensive.” Feb 2003, IDEAS. Sep 2004. Available from World Wide Web: (http://www.networkideas.org/themes/resources/feb2003/re08_Chavez_Offensive.htm)

“Chavez Calls Bush 'Asshole' as Foes Fight Troops.” Reuters. Feb 2004. Pipeline Sep 2004. Available from World Wide Web: (http://www.pipeline.com/~rougeforum/chavezcallsbush.html)

“CLINTON'S REPRISAL HITS IRAQ” [online]. 1996. The Winds, Nov 2004.Available from World Wide Web: (http://www.apfn.org/thewinds/archive/newworld/a101096c.html)

Coen, Rachel. “U.S. Papers Hail Venezuelan Coup as Pro-Democracy Move.” ExtraUpdate, June 2002. FAIR.org, Nov 2004. Available from World Wide Web: (http://www.fair.org/extra/0206/venezuela-coup.html)

“Coup and Counter-coup.” The Economist Global Agenda. Apr 2002. The Economist. Nov 2004. Available from World Wide Web:

Wan & Barnes 32

(http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1085743)

Crespo, Paul. “Venezuela: The Next Cuba.” Front Page Magazine. Mar 2004. The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Nov 2004. Available from World Wide Web: (http://www.defenddemocracy.org/in_the_media/in_the_media_show.htm?doc_id=215213)

Easton, Adam. “Venezuela's Chavez faces labour wrath.” BBC News. Dec 2001. The BBC. Sep 2004. Available from World Wide Web: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1701778.stm)

Fletcher, Pascal. “Chavez: Venezuela would stop oil to U.S. if invaded.” Reuters. Feb 2004. Independent Media TV. Sep 2004. Available from World Wide Web: (http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=5970&fcategory_desc=Venezuela)

Hinson, Hal. “The Panama Deception”, The Washington Post 17 Oct. 1992

McDermott, Jeremy. “Chavez ‘beats’ general strike as the oil flows.” News.Telegraph. Jan 2003. The Telegraph. Nov 2004. Available from World Wide Web: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/30/wven30.xml)

Olson, Alexandra. “Call Made for South American Trade Bloc.” Associated Press. Aug 2003. Global Exchange. Nov 2004. Available from World Wide Web: (http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/ftaa/1010.html)

Palast, Greg. “Hugo Chavez vs. The Free Trade Zombies of the Americas.” Dec 2003, Morphizm. Nov 2004. Available from World Wide Web: (http://www.morphizm.com/politix/palast/palast_chavez.html)

Palast, Greg. “Don't believe everything you read in the papers about Venezuela.” The Guardian. Apr 2002. Arena. Sep 2004. Available from World Wide Web: (http://www.arena.org.nz/vencred.htm)

The CIA in Nicaragua. Wake Up Articles, 23 Nov 2004. Available from World Wide Web:(http://www.wakeupmag.co.uk/articles/cia5.htm)

“Venezuelan general strike extended.” BBC News. Apr 2002. The BBC. Nov 2004. Available from World Wide Web: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1918189.stm)

Wan & Barnes 33

Vulliamy, Ed. “Venezuela coup linked to Bush team.” The Observer. Apr 2002. The Guardian. Nov 2004. Available from World Wide Web: (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html)

Works Cited: James Wan, analysis of Afghanistan and Caspian Region

Afghanistan Country Analysis Brief. 8 Nov .2004 <http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html>

Caspian Sea Region. 5 Nov .2004 <http://www.mll.gr/Kat/History/Txt/CaspianSeaRegion.htm>

Caspian Sea ENERGY BASIN. 5 Nov .2004 <http://www.emu.edu.tr/~eefegil/caspianseaenergybasin.htm>

Corporations, National Security and War Profiteering. 8 Nov .2004 <http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2001/01november/nov01interviewrashid.html>

Feminists v. The Taliban. 12 Nov .2004<http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/000/316yqawi.asp>

Guardian Unlimited | Columnists | George Monbiot: America's pipe dream. 5 Nov .2004<http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,579174,00.html>

The Hindu: America, oil and Afghanistan. 5 Nov .2004 <http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2001/10/13/stories/05132524.htm>

JURIST - Cohn: The Deadly Pipeline War: U.S. Afghan Policy Driven By Oil Interests. 12 Nov .2004 <http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew41.php>

Is an Oil Pipeline behind the War in Afghanistan? 12 Nov .2004 <http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/sardi7.html>

Rumsfeld defends 'war on terror'. 5 Nov .2004 <http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040910-060938-9283r.htm>

Unocal statement on withdrawal from the proposed Central Asia Gas (CentGas) pipeline project 12/10/98. 12 Nov .2004 <http://www.unocal.com/uclnews/98news/centgas.htm>

Untitled Document. 12 Nov .2004 <http://www.unomaha.edu/afghanistan_atlas/civilwar.html>

Wan & Barnes 34

USA: Carter State of Union 1981. 8 Nov .2004 <http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/jc39/speeches/su81jec.htm>

The War for Oil Subtext in Afghanistan. 8 Nov .2004<http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1125-06.htm>

Russia, Oil. 13 Nov .2004 <http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/5499-11.cfm>