BACKGROUND: The story of TAP is one of melancholy. Started in 1991 with the efforts of Bridas Corp., by the mid-1990s it was already a battleground between rival consortiums led by Unocal and Bridas with heavy Saudi involvement on both sides, including elements with ties to Osama bin Laden. The shutting of eyes at the time to the Taliban’s crimes was due to the desire of international energy lobbies for a stable regime in Afghanistan. The plan advocated by Carlos Bulgheroni, CEO of Bridas, was simple: to connect Central Asia\'s energy riches with the Indian subcontinent and international markets, through a pipeline to be built from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan, ending in Pakistan. For all of Bulgheroni’s strenuous efforts, it was Unocal, owing to the sophistication and skill of its top management and its connection to Saudi partners and Afghan employees – the most prominent among company advisors being Zalmay Khalilzad and Hamid Karzai – that managed to marginalize Bridas from the project as early as 1995. Thus until the U.S. retaliated against the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998, the Taliban, appearing to stand for “stability”, enjoyed enormous tacit support from business as well as political circles in the West. Unocal had to withdraw from the project following the events in Kenya and Tanzania. Following the U.S.-led attack on the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in the wake of September 11, 2001, there has been increasing support for the revival of TAP. The political will to revive the project was manifested in a January 2003 agreement between Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan. More encouraging is the provision by the Asian Development Bank of funds for feasibility studies – the primary stage to be finalized very soon – and pre-project costs. The expected meeting of the steering committee of the ADB this month will be of a strategic importance as regards the project’s go-ahead.

IMPLICATIONS: The initial phase of the TAP foresees the construction of a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan’s Dauletabad-Donmez gas fields to the Pakistani deep-sea port at Gwadar, or via Lahore to Amritsar in India, with provisions for the addition of an oil pipeline in the future, so that construction costs can be contained. Depending on the route, the pipeline will be either 900 or 1100 miles in length, with estimated costs reaching $3.5 billion. There are two different options for the pipeline route through Afghanistan – either via Herat-Sokhab and Kandahar to Multan and Fazilka, or through Northern Shibirgan-Mazar-i Sherif and Kabul to Peshawar, Lahore and eventually Amritsar. The second alternative has appealed more to the Tajik, Uzbek, Turkmen and Hazara peoples of Afghanistan because it passes through their lands. In fact, a pipeline could provide a common interest to the many long-alienated and disparate ethnic groups of Afghanistan. It would bind these Northern groups with Southern Pashtuns in the pursuit of common benefits, contributing to the integrity and cohesion of Afghan society and thus serving as an indispensable tool for nation-building efforts underway in the country. The second option would potentially, quite rapidly, facilitate the inclusion of Uzbekistani gas fields that are close to the Afghan border. Moreover, this route, which would enter Pakistan from Kabul, would be advantageous in that it might be extended into the industrialized, northwestern part of India. In such a case, there would be a great impetus for the exploration of the important gas fields already in use in Shibirgan province – facilitated by Soviet engineers years ago – as well as of the oil reserves of Sar-e Pul. In financial terms, the TAP would contribute annual transit revenues of around $300 million to the Afghan economy, with even more benefits coming indirectly through job creation and improved infrastructure, with more gas, electricity and heating available to support local industries. The Indian determination to build the trans-Afghan highway and railroads is a positive sign in this regard. More to the point, India is eager for extension of the pipeline into its territories, provided that Pakistani goodwill regarding supply security is guaranteed at the international level. India’s decision to join the project would contribute to economic integration and interdependence, creating a golden opportunity to lay the foundations of long-term peace and prosperity in the region. For Turkmenistan and potentially for the rest of the Central Asian states, having an alternative route to export their energy resources would make them less dependent on the Russian pipeline system. This landlocked mass of the world is still at the mercy of the economic and industrial infrastructures of the former Soviet Union, which leaves them scant room for diplomatic maneuver. In view of the prominence given to energy security and the diversification of global energy resources in the agenda of the Bush administration in recent years, the TAP could become an important element in the global picture. As an alternative source of fuel, it would provide cheaper products for Western consumers as well as for Far Eastern countries, given that these are widely thought to be the main drivers of global energy demand in the coming decades. However, some potentially negative effects of the project need to be mentioned. These chiefly concern Russia and Iran. Russia would be poised to lose most of its cheap gas from Turkmenistan and from other Central Asian states in the medium run. That would force it to explore more of her own gas fields in Siberia and consume the extracted product in the domestic market, instead of selling it abroad at higher prices. Thus it would be advisable for the Russian gas monopoly Gazprom to be strongly encouraged to join the new consortium and to share the benefits of the project. Otherwise, Russia would be likely to exert massive political influence on the Central Asian governments, with inevitable negative consequences for the stability and order of the entire region. It is noteworthy that Ukraine, as a major buyer of Turkmen gas, has already expressed its desire to take part in the construction of the TAP. Iran, likewise, would be harmed if it were excluded from the post-war Afghan economic recovery. Its own ambitions concerning the transportation of Central Asian oil and gas to the Persian Gulf or the Indian Ocean would be hurt. Speculation as to a pipeline connecting Iran and India either on the seabed or in Pakistani territorial waters has already been made. However, all three proposed projects for the exportation of Iranian gas to India are fraught with similar, if not greater, difficulties as the extension of TAP into industrialized India.

CONCLUSIONS: There is a strong case to be made that the TAP would constitute an important element of a solution to Afghanistan’s drug problem, constituting an alternative source of income. Income from opium poppy cultivation, now reaching the equivalent of one third of the country’s GDP, is a major concern for the Karzai administration. A major threat to the stability of Afghanistan is the possibility that the central government will fail to share revenues with the regions on an equal basis. This would fuel anti-unitary sentiments in the North and boost demands for federalism. Therefore, successful completion of the project would mark a growing recognition that it is in the Western world’s interest to help Karzai defeat the drug barons and create a prosperous Afghanistan.

AUTHORS’ BIO: Teymur Huseyinov is an independent energy consultant and Eurasian affairs analyst. Hasanali Karasar (Ph.D.) is an advisor to Afghan government and Assistant Professor in the Department of International Relations at Bilkent University in Ankara, Turkey.