No subject

=20
survey by the Defense Department inspector general last month found that=20
nearly one in five female cadets said they had been sexually assaulted since=
 coming=20
to the Air Force Academy. Just 19 percent reported the crimes, fearing=20
punishment or ostracism.

``Academy and Air Force leaders knew or should have known that this data was=
=20
an unmistakable warning sign and quite possibly signaled an even larger=20
crisis,'' the report said.

Colorado Sen. Wayne Allard said he planned to make clear to Schmitz when he=20
met with him Tuesday that a full investigation into who should be accountabl=
e=20
for the academy's sexual assault problems was crucial.

The actions of previous academy leaders -- Lt. Gen. John Dallager, Brig. Gen=
.=20
S. Taco Gilbert III and Col. Laurie Sue Slavec -- who were reassigned in the=
=20
aftermath of the sex scandal also warrant investigation by the inspector=20
general, the panel said.

``General Dallager and General Gilbert failed to exercise the judgment,=20
awareness and resourcefulness necessary to realize that there was a sexual=20
misconduct and social climate problem in their command that directly impacte=
d the=20
welfare and safety of their cadets,'' the report said.

The panel also was critical of a June report by an Air Force Academy Working=
=20
Group, led by Air Force General Counsel Mary Walker. The panel said that=20
report attempted to ``shield Air Force headquarters from public criticism''=20=
by=20
downplaying the information available to Air Force brass that there were pro=
blems=20
at the Colorado Springs, Colo., school.

Air Force Secretary James G. Roche replaced the senior academy leadership in=
=20
March, even though he said they were not responsible for problems they=20
inherited. The assertion drew scathing criticism from Sen. John McCain, R-Ar=
iz., who=20
said Roche ``has proven himself totally incapable of handling this issue.''

Pentagon spokeswoman Michelle Shortencarrier said Rumsfeld planned to=20
carefully review the report and consider the panel's recommendations. Academ=
y=20
spokesman Col. David Cannon said it would take time to review the report and=
 form a=20
plan before proceeding.

Jamie Zuieback, spokeswoman for the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network,=20
said she was pleased with how the report sought to hold officers accountable=
,=20
but added: ``There is a much bigger issue and that is, is there an instituti=
onal=20
understanding of the severity of the crime? Are victims being handled=20
appropriately? ... And from a law enforcement perspective, is everything bei=
ng done=20
to bring perpetrators to justice?''

Members of the congressional panel, including its chairwoman, former Florida=
=20
Rep. Tillie Fowler, were scheduled to testify before the House and Senate=20
armed services committees on Wednesday.

^------

On the Net:

Air Force Academy: http://www.usafa.af.mil/


**
U.S.: Troops Within Rules in Reuters Case
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

=20
Filed at 2:33 p.m. ET

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- U.S. soldiers acted within the rules on opening fire=20
when they shot and killed a Reuters television cameraman last month while=20
videotaping near a U.S.-run prison on the outskirts of Baghdad, a U.S. Army=20=
officer=20
said Monday.

Mazen Dana, 41, was filming outside Abu Ghraib prison in western Baghdad whe=
n=20
he was fatally shot Aug. 17 by U.S. soldiers who the military said mistook=20
his camera for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher. Dana, a Palestinian, was=
=20
filming a day after a mortar attack in which six prisoners were killed and a=
bout=20
60 were wounded.

Lt. Col. George Krivo, a military spokesman, said an official investigation=20
concluded that ``although a regrettable incident,'' the soldiers ``acted wit=
hin=20
the rules of engagement.''

The U.S. Army has never publicly announced those rules, citing security of=20
its soldiers, who face near-daily attack by insurgents opposed to the Americ=
an=20
military occupation.

Reuters said at the time that Dana's camera showed two U.S. tanks coming=20
toward him. Two shots, apparently from the tanks, rang out and Dana fell to=20=
the=20
ground. He was taken by a U.S. Army helicopter to hospital where he died.

Press advocacy groups Reporters Without Borders and the U.S.-based Committee=
=20
to Protect Journalists had demanded a full investigation into the shooting.

Dana, the father of four, was the 17th journalist and the second Reuters=20
cameraman killed in Iraq since the start of the war on March 20. Reuters cam=
eraman=20
Taras Protsyuk died April 8 after an American tank fired at the Palestine=20
hotel in Baghdad as U.S. troops took the city.=20

**

US/UK DEFEATED ON DU  VOTE AT THE UNITED NATIONS  SUB-COMMISSION
Contact: Philippa Winkler 928 774 1765 (USA)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
Efforts by the US/UK to keep depleted uranium off the agenda of the UN
Sub-Commission on Protection and Promotion of Human Rights failed this
August as the Sub-Commission clearly decided that depleted uranuim weaponry
qualify as weapons of mass destructio
n (WMD) and authorized a prominent member, Justice Y. Sik Yuen (Mauritius)
to prepare a study on the topic. The UK member of the Sub-Commisson tried to
have depleted uranium weaponry deleted from the study, which had been
authorized earlier by the Sub-Com
mission, arguing that DU weaponry are not WMD,but her proposed amendments
and a substitute resolution were defeated, drawing only two votes -- hers
and the vote of the member from Norway.

The debate as well as the outcome reinforces the claim made by Karen Parker
and supported by a clear majority of international experts --including 23 of
the 26 members of the Sub-Commission -- that DU is already banned because it
is incompatible with exis
ting humanitarian law and qualifies as WMD. (The  American member was chair
and did not vote, but according to eyewitnesses allowed the Norwegian member
to speak beyond the limits usually allocated for such debates.)

The vote to study weapons of mass destruction including DU is the latest
success of UN non-governmental organizations (NGOs), who, beginning in 1996,
started a campaign for a strong condemnation of both DU and sanctions. In
1996 attorney Karen Parker, Mar
garita Papendreou, Dr. Beatrice Boctor, Philippa Winkler and Dr. Gorst
Gunther (all representing International Educational Development/
Humanitarian Law Project (IED/HLP)) made a two prong charge against both DU
and sanctions at that year's session of the
 U.N. Commission on Human Rights. Then, at the 1996 session of the
Sub-Commission, following a speech made by attorney Karen Parker on behalf
of IED/HLP and extensive lobbying by her and Fabio Marcelli (Italy) on the
effects of DU on Iraq, a resolution wa
s adopted by the Sub-Commission that included depleted uranium weaponry on a
list of other "bad" weapons and asked the Secretary-General to present a
report on these weapons to the 1997 session of the Sub-Commission. The
report was to reflect submissions
fro
m governments, NGOs and others. The Secretary-General's report was submitted
on schedule in 1997,thanks to the efforts of Karen Parker, Damacio Lopez,
Felicity Arbuthnot,Philippa Winkler and others and was issued as U.N.
Doc.E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/27 and Add.
1.That year the Sub-Commission decided to appoint one of its members, Mme
Forero Ucros (Columbia), to prepare a working paper preparatory to a full
study. Unfortunately Mme Forero never returned to the Sub-Commission, with
many saying this was because of
US pressure.

The same year, however, the Sub-Commission moved on the sanctions issue, and
adopted a resolution on economic sanctions -- responding again to a speech
by Karen Parker.  Unfortunately, that resolution's author, Marc Bossuyt
(Belgium) was ill the following
 year, and was unable to attend the Sub-Commisison's session. When he
returned in 1999, the Sub-Commission authorized him to prepare a working
paper on sanctions, issued as UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2000/33.

Following the departure of Mme Forero, there were changes in the membership
of the  Sub-Commission, and the "team" was uncertain whether it was
necessary or useful to go forward with a study on DU and the  other listed
weapons, in part because (1) the Sub
-Commission had already labeled DU as a WMD, and (2) the Secretary-General's
report contained substantial portions of both the Parker Memorandum on
Weapons, the submission of the International Indian Treaty Council and a
number of countries, all essential
ly implying the same thing -- DU weaponry is incompatible with existing
international humanitarian law and human rights norms. However, during these
three years, the NGOs at the UN continued to present seminars, films and
keep up the pressure. In 1999, th
e video documentary "From Radioactive Mines to Radioactive Weapons" was
shown at the Commission. The documentary linked the health impacts of
uranium mining on Navajo miners to  the impacts of DU weapons, and described
tests done by Dr Hari Sharma showing
 th
e presence of DU in Gulf War veterans including Ray Bristow. The number of
UN NGOs presenting statements on DU continued to grow. At the 2001 session
of the Sub-Commission, one of the most respected members of the
Sub-Commission, Justice Y. Sik Yuen (Maur
itius) agreed to go forward with the study. (Karen Parker had tried to
convince him to take on this study for several years, but he had already
been assigned another study). By Thursday of the first week of the 2001
session, the draft resolution was table
d (submitted) with 16 co-sponsors.

The final debate on the draft became, as Karen Parker says, a "dream come
true." The US and UK tried to urge that DU is a 'conventional' weapon and
therefore 'legal.' So the debate really shows that these two countries are
backed into a corner, and the re
st of the world accepts that DU is and always was illegal." (Please note:
There have been many NGOs who have contributed to this effort at the
Sub-Commission and we apologize if some have not been mentioned by name.)

The documents from the Sub-Commission are not yet all posted on the UN
web-site, and as soon as they are available, we will let you know.

In the meantime, Karen Parker  will be assisting Justice Sik Yuen on this
study, and requests that people begin to collect the latest relevant
information to transmit to her at ied at igc.org if they are small enough.
Larger documents may be transmitted to h
er office by mail. Funds to assist this effort may be made out to Karen
Parker directly, of for those wishing to make a tax-exempt contribution, to
the Association of Humanitarian Lawyers, and sent to The Law Offices of
Karen Parker, 154-5th Avenue, San F
rancisco, CA 94118, USA.

Below is the relevent press release from the UN website
http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/NewsRoom?OpenFrameSet
UNITED NATIONS

                 Press Release




xxxxxxxxxx
             SUBCOMMISSION ASKS EXPERTS TO CONDUCT
             STUDIES ON WEAPONS, RIGHT OF RETURN OF
          REFUGEES' PROPERTY, AND NON-DISCRIMINATION

xxxxxxxxxx


                                           Subcommission on the
Promotion
                                             and Protection of Human
Rights
                                                           53rd
session
                                                         16 August
2001
                                                             Afternoon



The Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights this
afternoon adopted a number of resolutions and measures which, among other
things, requested its members to carry out studies on human rights and
weapons of mass destruction; the transf
er and use of small arms in the context of human rights; the return of
refugees' or displaced persons' property; and non-discrimination.

Concerning weapons, the Subcommission, by a show of hands vote of 21 in
favour and 2 against, approved a decision that asked Subcommission Expert
Y.K.J. Yeung Sik Yuen to prepare a paper on human rights and weapons of mass
destruction.

In the report, he would assess the utility, scope and structure of a study
on the real and potential dangers to the effective enjoyment of human rights
posed by the testing, production, storage, transfer, trafficking, or use of
weapons of mass destruction
 with indiscriminate effect, or of a nature to cause superfluous injury or
unnecessary suffering, including the use of weaponry containing depleted
uranium.

**
Asia Times - The Oil Behind Bush=20
And Son's Campaigns
By Ranjit Devraj
Asia Times
10-8-1

NEW DELHI - Just as the Gulf War in 1991 was all about oil, the new conflict=
=20
in South and Central Asia is no less about access to the region's abundant=20
petroleum resources, according to Indian analysts.=20
 =20
"US influence and military presence in Afghanistan and the Central Asian=20
states, not unlike that over the oil-rich Gulf states, would be a major stra=
tegic=20
gain," said V R Raghavan, a strategic analyst and former general in the Indi=
an=20
army. Raghavan believes that the prospect of a western military presence in=20=
a=20
region extending from Turkey to Tajikistan could not have escaped strategist=
s=20
who are now readying a military campaign aimed at changing the political=20
order in Afghanistan, accused by the United States of harboring Osama bin La=
den.=20
 =20
Where the "great game" in Afghanistan was once about czars and commissars=20
seeking access to the warm water ports of the Persian Gulf, today it is abou=
t=20
laying oil and gas pipelines to the untapped petroleum reserves of Central A=
sia.=20
According to testimony before the US House of Representatives in March 1999=20=
by=20
the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan,=20
Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan together have 15 billion barrels of proven oil=20
reserves. The same countries also have proven gas deposits totaling not less=
 than=20
nine trillion cubic meters. Another study by the Institute for Afghan Studie=
s=20
placed the total worth of oil and gas reserves in the Central Asian republic=
s at=20
around US$3 trillion at last year's prices.=20
 =20
Not only can Afghanistan play a role in hosting pipelines connecting Central=
=20
Asia to international markets, but the country itself has significant oil an=
d=20
gas deposits. During the Soviets' decade-long occupation of Afghanistan,=20
Moscow estimated Afghanistan's proven and probable natural gas reserves at a=
round=20
five trillion cubic feet and production reached 275 million cubic feet per d=
ay=20
in the mid-1970s. But sabotage by anti-Soviet mujahideen (freedom fighters)=20
and by rival groups in the civil war that followed Soviet withdrawal in 1989=
=20
virtually closed down gas production and ended deals for the supply of gas t=
o=20
several European countries.=20
 =20
Major Afghan natural gas fields awaiting exploitation include Jorqaduq,=20
Khowaja, Gogerdak, and Yatimtaq, all of which are located within 9 kilometer=
s of=20
the town of Sheberghan in northrern Jowzjan province.=20
 =20
Natural gas production and distribution under Afghanistan's Taliban rulers i=
s=20
the responsibility of the Afghan Gas Enterprise which, in 1999, began repair=
=20
of a pipeline to Mazar-i-Sharif city. Afghanistan's proven and probable oil=20
and condensate reserves were placed at 95 million barrels by the Soviets. So=
=20
far, attempts to exploit Afghanistan's petroleum reserves or take advantage=20=
of=20
its unique geographical location as a crossroads to markets in Europe and So=
uth=20
Asia have been thwarted by the continuing civil strife.=20
 =20
In 1998, the California-based UNOCAL, which held 46.5 percent stakes in=20
Central Asia Gas (CentGas), a consortium that planned an ambitious gas pipel=
ine=20
across Afghanistan, withdrew in frustration after several fruitless years. T=
he=20
pipeline was to stretch 1,271km from Turkmenistan's Dauletabad fields to Mul=
tan=20
in Pakistan at an estimated cost of $1.9 billion. An additional $600 million=
=20
would have brought the pipeline to energy-hungry India.=20
 =20
Energy experts in India, such as R K Pachauri, who heads the Tata Energy=20
Research Institute (TERI), have long been urging the country's planners to e=
nsure=20
access to petroleum products from the Central Asian republics, with which Ne=
w=20
Delhi has traditionally maintained good relations. Other partners in CentGas=
=20
included the Saudi Arabian Delta Oil Company, the Government of Turkmenistan=
,=20
Indonesia Petroleum (INPEX), the Japanese ITOCHU, Korean Hyundai and Pakista=
n's=20
Crescent Group.=20
 =20
According to observers, one problem is the uncertainty over who the=20
beneficiaries in Afghanistan would be - the opposition Northern Alliance, th=
e Taliban,=20
the Afghan people or indeed, whether any of these would benefit at all. But=20
the immediate reason for UNOCAL's withdrawal was undoubtedly the US cruise=20
missile attacks on Osama bin Laden's terrorism training camps in Afghanistan=
 in=20
August 1998, done in retaliation for the bombing of its embassies in Africa.=
=20
UNOCAL then stated that the project would have to wait until Afghanistan ach=
ieved=20
the "peace and stability necessary to obtain financing from international=20
agencies and a government that is recognized by the United States and the Un=
ited=20
Nations".=20
 =20
The "coalition against terrorism" that US President George W Bush is buildin=
g=20
now is the first opportunity that has any chance of making UNOCAL's wish com=
e=20
true. If the coalition succeeds, Raghavan said, it has the potential of=20
"reconfiguring substantially the energy scenarios for the 21st century".=20
 =20
(Inter Press Service) =A92001 Asia Times Online Co., Ltd. Room 6301 The Cent=
er=20
99 Queen's Road, Central, Hong Kong=20
http://www.atimes.com/global-econ/CJ06Dj01.html
=20

U.S. INTERESTS IN THE CENTRAL ASIAN REPUBLICS HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTE=
E=20
ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS HOUSE OF=
=20
REPRESENTATIVES=20
 =20
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION=20
FEBRUARY 12, 1998
 =20
 =20
Next we would like to hear from Mr. John J. Maresca, vice president of=20
international relations, Unocal Corporation. You may proceed as you wish.=20
 =20
STATEMENT OF JOHN J. MARESCA, VICE PRESIDENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS,=20
UNOCAL CORPORATION
 =20
Mr. Maresca. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's nice to see you again. I am John=20
Maresca, vice president for international relations of the Unocal Corporatio=
n.=20
Unocal, as you know, is one of the world's leading energy resource and proje=
ct=20
development companies. I appreciate your invitation to speak here today. I=20
believe these hearings are important and timely. I congratulate you for focu=
sing=20
on Central Asia oil and gas reserves and the role they play in shaping U.S.=20
policy.=20
 =20
I would like to focus today on three issues. First, the need for multiple=20
pipeline routes for Central Asian oil and gas resources. Second, the need fo=
r=20
U.S. support for international and regional efforts to achieve balanced and=20
lasting political settlements to the conflicts in the region, including=20
Afghanistan. Third, the need for structured assistance to encourage economic=
 reforms and=20
the development of appropriate investment climates in the region. In this=20
regard, we specifically support repeal or removal of section 907 of the Free=
dom=20
Support Act.=20
 =20
Mr. Chairman, the Caspian region contains tremendous untapped hydrocarbon=20
reserves. Just to give an idea of the scale, proven natural gas reserves equ=
al=20
more than 236 trillion cubic feet. The region's total oil reserves may well=20
reach more than 60 billion barrels of oil. Some estimates are as high as 200=
=20
billion barrels. In 1995, the region was producing only 870,000 barrels per=20=
day. By=20
2010, western companies could increase production to about 4.5 million=20
barrels a day, an increase of more than 500 percent in only 15 years. If thi=
s=20
occurs, the region would represent about 5 percent of the world's total oil=20
production.=20
 =20
One major problem has yet to be resolved: how to get the region's vast energ=
y=20
resources to the markets where they are needed. Central Asia is isolated.=20
Their natural resources are landlocked, both geographically and politically.=
 Each=20
of the countries in the Caucasus and Central Asia faces difficult political=20
challenges. Some have unsettled wars or latent conflicts. Others have evolvi=
ng=20
systems where the laws and even the courts are dynamic and changing. In=20
addition, a chief technical obstacle which we in the industry face in transp=
orting=20
oil is the region's existing pipeline infrastructure.=20
 =20
Because the region's pipelines were constructed during the Moscow-centered=20
Soviet period, they tend to head north and west toward Russia. There are no=20
connections to the south and east. But Russia is currently unlikely to absor=
b=20
large new quantities of foreign oil. It's unlikely to be a significant marke=
t for=20
new energy in the next decade. It lacks the capacity to deliver it to other=20
markets.=20
 =20
Two major infrastructure projects are seeking to meet the need for additiona=
l=20
export capacity. One, under the aegis of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium,=20
plans to build a pipeline west from the northern Caspian to the Russian Blac=
k Sea=20
port of Novorossiysk. Oil would then go by tanker through the Bosporus to th=
e=20
Mediterranean and world markets.=20
 =20
The other project is sponsored by the Azerbaijan International Operating=20
Company, a consortium of 11 foreign oil companies, including four American=20
companies, Unocal, Amoco, Exxon and Pennzoil. This consortium conceives of t=
wo=20
possible routes, one line would angle north and cross the north Caucasus to=20
Novorossiysk. The other route would cross Georgia to a shipping terminal on=20=
the Black=20
Sea. This second route could be extended west and south across Turkey to the=
=20
Mediterranean port of Ceyhan.=20
 =20
But even if both pipelines were built, they would not have enough total=20
capacity to transport all the oil expected to flow from the region in the fu=
ture.=20
Nor would they have the capability to move it to the right markets. Other=20
export pipelines must be built.=20
 =20
At Unocal, we believe that the central factor in planning these pipelines=20
should be the location of the future energy markets that are most likely to=20=
need=20
these new supplies. Western Europe, Central and Eastern Europe, and the Newl=
y=20
Independent States of the former Soviet Union are all slow growth markets=20
where demand will grow at only a half a percent to perhaps 1.2 percent per y=
ear=20
during the period 1995 to 2010.=20
 =20
Asia is a different story all together. It will have a rapidly increasing=20
energy consumption need. Prior to the recent turbulence in the Asian Pacific=
=20
economies, we at Unocal anticipated that this region's demand for oil would=20=
almost=20
double by 2010. Although the short-term increase in demand will probably not=
=20
meet these expectations, we stand behind our long-term estimates.=20
 =20
I should note that it is in everyone's interest that there be adequate=20
supplies for Asia's increasing energy requirements. If Asia's energy needs a=
re not=20
satisfied, they will simply put pressure on all world markets, driving price=
s=20
upwards everywhere.=20
 =20
The key question then is how the energy resources of Central Asia can be mad=
e=20
available to nearby Asian markets. There are two possible solutions, with=20
several variations. One option is to go east across China, but this would me=
an=20
constructing a pipeline of more than 3,000 k ilometers just to reach Central=
=20
China. In addition, there would have to be a 2,000-kilometer connection to r=
each=20
the main population centers along the coast. The question then is what will=20=
be=20
the cost of transporting oil through this pipeline, and what would be the=20
netback which the producers would receive.=20
 =20
For those who are not familiar with the terminology, the netback is the pric=
e=20
which the producer receives for his oil or gas at the wellhead after all the=
=20
transportation costs have been deducted. So it's the price he receives for t=
he=20
oil he produces at the wellhead.=20
 =20
The second option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the=20
Indian Ocean. One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclos=
ed for=20
American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other=20
possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique=20
challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two d=
ecades, and=20
is still divided by civil war. From the outset, we have made it clear that=20
construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not b=
egin=20
until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of=20
governments, lenders, and our company.=20
 =20
Mr. Chairman, as you know, we have worked very closely with the University o=
f=20
Nebraska at Omaha in developing a training program for Afghanistan which wil=
l=20
be open to both men and women, and which will operate in both parts of the=20
country, the north and south.=20
 =20
Unocal foresees a pipeline which would become part of a regional system that=
=20
will gather oil from existing pipeline infrastructure in Turkmenistan,=20
Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia. The 1,040-mile long oil pipeline would ex=
tend=20
south through Afghanistan to an export terminal that would be constructed on=
 the=20
Pakistan coast. This 42-inch diameter pipeline will have a shipping capacity=
 of=20
one million barrels of oil per day. The estimated cost of the project, which=
=20
is similar in scope to the trans-Alaska pipeline, is about $2.5 billion.=20
 =20
Given the plentiful natural gas supplies of Central Asia, our aim is to link=
=20
gas resources with the nearest viable markets. This is basic for the=20
commercial viability of any gas project. But these projects also face geopol=
itical=20
challenges. Unocal and the Turkish company Koc Holding are interested in bri=
nging=20
competitive gas supplies to Turkey. The proposed Eurasia natural gas pipelin=
e=20
would transport gas from Turkmenistan directly across the Caspian Sea throug=
h=20
Azerbaijan and Georgia to Turkey. Of course the demarcation of the Caspian=20
remains an issue.=20
 =20
Last October, the Central Asia Gas Pipeline Consortium, called CentGas, in=20
which Unocal holds an interest, was formed to develop a gas pipeline which w=
ill=20
link Turkmenistan's vast Dauletabad gas field with markets in Pakistan and=20
possibly India. The proposed 790-mile pipeline will open up new markets for=20=
this=20
gas, traveling from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Multan in Pakistan.=20
The proposed extension would move gas on to New Delhi, where it would connec=
t=20
with an existing pipeline. As with the proposed Central Asia oil pipeline,=20
CentGas can not begin construction until an internationally recognized Afgha=
nistan=20
Government is in place.=20
 =20
The Central Asia and Caspian region is blessed with abundant oil and gas tha=
t=20
can enhance the lives of the region's residents, and provide energy for=20
growth in both Europe and Asia. The impact of these resources on U.S. commer=
cial=20
interests and U.S. foreign policy is also significant. Without peaceful=20
settlement of the conflicts in the region, cross-border oil and gas pipeline=
s are not=20
likely to be built. We urge the Administration and the Congress to give stro=
ng=20
support to the U.N.-led peace process in Afghanistan. The U.S. Government=20
should use its influence to help find solutions to all of the region's confl=
icts.=20
 =20
U.S. assistance in developing these new economies will be crucial to busines=
s=20
success. We thus also encourage strong technical assistance programs=20
throughout the region. Specifically, we urge repeal or removal of section 90=
7 of the=20
Freedom Support Act. This section unfairly restricts U.S. Government assista=
nce=20
to the government of Azerbaijan and limits U.S. influence in the region.=20
 =20
Developing cost-effective export routes for Central Asian resources is a=20
formidable task, but not an impossible one. Unocal and other American compan=
ies=20
like it are fully prepared to undertake the job and to make Central Asia onc=
e=20
again into the crossroads it has been in the past. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.=20
 =20
[The prepared statement of Mr. Maresca appears in the appendix.]