Kosovo and the Oil Connection: Truth is the First Casualty of War

{ship}

Hunter's frank explanation of the connection between Kosovo and the oil beneath the lands and seas of the countries to the southeast of Europe stands in stark contrast to a strange half page ad the American Jewish Committee placed in the April 18 edition of the New York Times proclaiming: "What is at stake in Kosovo isn't oil or commerce or trading routes."

Last October, Stephen Kinzer wrote in the New York Times that the proposal to build a new oil pipeline in the Caucasus had become "a centerpiece of American foreign policy." Kinzer has described in great detail the "grand rivalry" that has begun over control of pipelines that will carry Caspian oil to foreign markets which he noted "will not simply carry oil but will also define new corridors of trade and power."

Kinzer wrote that the Clinton Administration had exerted "every form of persuasion at its disposal" to convince oil companies to build the new pipeline running from Azerbaijan to Turkey. At the time last October he had apparently failed to persuade them. The oil companies had pretty much decided that the project's cost estimated somewhere around $2.4 billion was just too much. Oil executives had suggested the US government finance the pipeline construction but Clinton responded that would be politically impossible to put across. The administration had, however, urged Turkey to offer the companies a generous package of incentives and tax breaks. On April 14 on this year, Kinzer reported Turkey has now assured the oil companies it will "guarantee a price for the pipeline and agree to pay any excess." (NYT, April 14, 1999)

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

Answers

Kevin Phillips has suggested that when the war began, U.S. President Bill Clinton might have see a conquered Yugoslavia as the linchpin of a new world order. (Los Angeles Times, May 22, 1999)

So, Clinton lied to us? We weren't really there to prevent the genocide of Albanians?

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

So, Clinton lied to us? We weren't really there to prevent the genocide of Albanians?

Lied? William Jefferson Clinton LIED?

WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT WAS EVEN POSSIBLE???

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

and GW Bush is simply continuing on with the BS. Is he lying as well? course he is.

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

Frankly, I don't know much about the Balkans except that they have been a quagmire for centuries. Clinton got us in there; whether for oil or idealism or geopolitics, who knows? GWB has talked about extracting troops. We shall see.

Brings up the old issue of pax Americana. Should we be the world's policeman? Can we? I say no and no. IMO, the purpose of our foreign policy and our military is to secure our nation and our allies. In today's world that often requires projecting power and foreign entanglements. It doen't mean that we are morally obliged to separate the Tutsis from the Hutus or the Albanians from the Macedonians, etc, etc, etc.

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

It would be too naive to think, that emotional interest is a leading principle in world politics. Of course the U.S. is interested to fill the power gap (since the fall of Sowjet Union and Yougoslavia) on the southern borders of Russia, areas full of black gold. Also, let's not forget, that U.S. influence in that region could diminish the threat of (potential) "criminal" states, as they put it. Last but not least, if the U.S. doesn't do it France will do it for sure.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2001

And just exactly what would the French use as weapons and armed forces? Stale baguettes and croissants laced with boiling Pate'?

Bush Sr.'s armed forces essentially pushed buttons and Iraq was decimated in less than 24 hours. The rest was "cleaning up". Too bad the job wasn't finished because it was not politically prudent at the time.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2001