134771Update for June 23, 2014 - Newsletter (Pipelines -3)
- Jun 22, 2014
I know that Paul Craig Roberts has written on more than one occasion that Washington views the EU as nothing more than some sort of means to an end in the struggle to get Russia surrounded with military bases - see the aggressive attitude of the Poles in this matter. He makes the claim that of the so-called leaders of the EU, there must have some very big bags of ... er, recompense to persuade them into doing the very opposite of what is right for their people; no matter who won seats in the recent EU Parliamentary elections. We certainly saw that after the monumental gaffe of Victoria Nuland (well gaffes – plural, I would say) that there was no comeback from Europe’s leaders apart from yet more blathering on how the evil Putin wanted to conquer Eastern Europe on the way to ... what? Anyhow, I am wandering away from my thesis on these updates – pipelines. Apologies!
I read about pipelines being constructed (or will be) between the oilfields of Kazakhstan and western China. They caused a bit of a splash initially and then nothing. It all boils down to building the things and then transporting the oil, Gas, whatever. In East Africa, there has been oil discovered in the Sudan/Somalia area in decent amounts (as I reported last year sometime). As the Chinese are all over that area of the Continent with massive loans, grants, and “deals of all types”, it stood to reason that Peking would be granted the rights to extracting and exporting the oil. It was only then that we saw how oil pipelines should be treated with respect and defense. The entire area is literally aflame with separatist sentiments, political extremism, and so forth. In fact even after China announced plans to safeguard their investments in this area (condemned in the Western Press interestingly enough) various “tribal leaders” announced plans to go after the pipelines in any event. I heard nothing more about this, but I must still wonder.
Why is it that China has to deploy troops to defend its interests but Middle East and Western assets lie peacefully untouched? Has there been some sort of “gentle persuasion” from Washington that if anything happens to its oil interests overseas then the offending nation will be “liberated”? Given that Washington has not covered itself with glory in its last few wars, I would have thought that some well organised nations in Africa or Asia might well call Washington’s bluff. However, who wants to go first? China may not have the luxury of using threatening bluffs and hence it has to use troops of one sort or another. Can we also say, in discussions of pipelines which are in US “interests”, that various people in positions of authority in a certain area are perhaps paid to make sure that another nation’s pipelines suffer “accidents”? Such operations would be performed again and again to the point where that other, competing, nation backs out and leaves US interests alone. There must be a decent reason why western pipelines are happily doing what they are supposed to with no one saying “boo” in any shape or form!