Letters to the Editor

Acknowledging U.S. involvement in the Taliban

I am writing in response to a number of recent 'Prince' columns and letters that have attacked any viewpoint that questions whether the United States or its associates have any complicity in the attacks on the World Trade Center. These columns label both the cynic and realpolitik observers as cowards and traitors to the God-blessed American homeland. After listening to Ravan Farhadi, the United Front's Ambassador to the United Nations, speak to the University last Friday, I demand an apology from these misguided patriots. Jameson Johnson GS tells us in his column on Oct. 12 to "be proud of America's efforts all over the world." Let us look at what is happening in Afghanistan, the place where Osama bin Laden's terrorist network is supported by the ruling government.

According to Ravan Farhadi, the only Afghan representative to the United Nations and spokesman for the United Front, the United States has been directly involved in installing and maintaining the Taliban regime for the last six years. In a letter that I wrote to the 'Prince' almost a month ago, I asked whether the global market system or the U.S. military have been involved in creating or provoking the terrorist attacks. I have continued to ask those questions, despite being labeled words as evil as "communist," and will continue to ask them as the United States engages in an extremely widespread and costly series of wars during the next few years. Farhadi told the Princeton community that Unocal, an American oil company, has been giving the Taliban $1 billion every year for the last six years. This kind of money dwarfs the food aid that the United States has given to Afghanistan. This oil company is providing enormous assistance to a government that has enslaved half of its population and killed many others. People, wake up.

Let me give you a little taste of the news that can be found on the Internet when one tires of American flags fading in and out of the TV screen. The following information can be found in Ashraf Khan's Feb. 17, 2001, article in the Business Recorder and in Shahid Mahmood's May 27, 2000, article in Pakistan's The Nation. Unocal was trying to construct a pipeline to India from Iran through Afghanistan in the mid-1990s. The $2.5 billion pipeline, known as the Central Asian Oil Pipeline project, would transport billions of dollars of natural gas and oil every year to one of the biggest populations in the world. There is major money working here. The deal went south in 1998 when the Clinton administration bombed a terrorist camp in Afghanistan. Unocal pulled out of the pipeline deal, and other groups, such as the Russian government, have since tried to supply the huge natural gas market in India. Unocal stated in 1998 that it would not be involved with the project until an internationally recognized government ruled in Afghanistan. After Unocal pulled out, the Centgas Consortium, including Saudi, Pakistani, Russian and South Korean oil companies, has continued the project. The pipeline is still being built. Coincidentally, the most financially involved nations in the pipeline, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, have recognized the Taliban as a legitimate government.

Unocal was happy to have the Taliban running things as long as their support of terrorist groups did not involve the United States military. There is still a great demand for a pipeline through Afghanistan. Unocal would like to have the problem solved. Does Unocal give donations to the Republican National Committee, to the Democratic National Committee, to George Bush? Would it be happy with a newly stable, UN-run Afghanistan that would allow it to rejoin the pipeline project? These are questions that need to be asked.

I am not spouting radical anti-corporate, anti-United States sentiments. Instead, I am trying to show that the equation is not as simple as the dichotomy Mr. Johnson sets up between evil terrorists and God-blessed Americans. Both views, of the radical anti-corporate and of the unthinking patriot, can only cloud our understanding of the current situation. Mr. Johnson brought attention to the U.S. involvement in Kuwait. Was that about oil? Did the United States not support Iraq while it killed millions of Iranians? Why did we shift allegiance? Was it because our oil supply was threatened?

It is ironic, but more pathetic and disheartening, that the United States, either implicitly or directly, has supported the illegitimate regime that sponsored the World Trade Center attacks. While I do not have all the facts, it is safe to say that, yes, the United States was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. I have not even addressed the military relationship between Pakistan's Inter-Services Intellig-ence and the United States. That is for someone else not afraid to be labeled a coward or traitor to question. Has the U.S. military been directly involved in supporting the Taliban regime? Mike Long '02