To be clear, the reason I described the discovery of untold mineral wealth in Afghanistan as hopeful is because it has been the glaring lack of natural resources that has made the future look so hopeless for that country. Their level of need so exceeds the capacity of the international community to provide that it has seemed as if Afghanistan is doomed to endure grinding poverty in perpetuity. It’s hard to be in a worse situation than relying on illegal narcotics for the bulk of your foreign trade.
If Afghanistan becomes one of the largest exporters of iron, copper, and lithium, they will have the amount of wealth they need to actually fund a national government and provide security. They’ll have a lot of new jobs that should pay significantly more than what the average Afghani makes now. And the very existence of all this wealth is a powerful incentive for tribal leaders to work out their differences and create the kind of conditions where foreign investment is attractive.
I’m not naive. I know there is a global competition for access to natural resources. I know that mining corporations have an abysmal record in the Third World. I know that there will be more pressure for the US to maintain a military presence in Afghanistan. But, despite all that, the discovery is hopeful because it could convince Afghanis to unite. It could provide the resources that Afghanistan needs to govern itself. And it could raise the standard of living of the people. And, really, if you think about it, this is what happened in Saudi Arabia after the discovery of oil there. For all the flaws with the Saudi Royal Family and the society they’ve created, they have raised the standard of living and education and health of their people dramatically since the 1930’s.
For thousands of years, the economy of the Arabian Peninsula was determined by autonomous clusters of people living near wells and oases. Most of the population was engaged in agriculture, including nomads who raised livestock by moving their animals to the limited forage produced by infrequent rains. However, the inability of pastoral nomads to provide for their communities solely on the basis of pastoral activities forced them to create multiple resource systems. Such systems took the form of protection services for merchant caravans and pilgrims, control over small oases, and, to a lesser extent, direct cultivation. In the settled areas, local craftsmen produced a few items needed by those living near or visiting the scattered sources of water. Production was limited to serve very small markets and existed essentially on a subsistence level. Trade was limited primarily to camel caravans and the annual influx of pilgrims visiting the holy places in the Hijaz. In the principal cities, such as Jiddah and Mecca, several large merchant families settled permanently and prospered, especially after the late nineteenth-century development of the Hejaz Railway. The growth in international trade associated with European colonial expansion also benefited these merchants and attracted numerous families from as far away as the Eastern Province of Arabia, Iran, the Levant, and Turkey.
Oil changed everything.
The most profound agent of change for the economy of Saudi Arabia was the discovery of huge reserves of oil by a United States company in 1938. Initially, the newly established oil industry had only an indirect impact on this primitive economy. The establishment of the Arabian American Oil Company (Aramco, predecessor of Saudi Aramco) and the oil towns around the oil fields triggered major changes in the economy of the kingdom, especially in the Eastern Province. Development of the oil fields required ancillary construction of modern ports, roads, housing, power plants, and water systems. Saudi workers had to be trained in new skills. In addition, the concentration of oil field employees and the range of services the oil company and employees needed opened new economic opportunities on a scale previously unseen by local merchants, contractors, and others. Aramco provided technical, financial, and logistical support to local entrepreneurs to shed the many support activities it had initially assumed. The discovery of oil ended the kingdom’s isolation and introduced new ways to organize the production and distribution of goods and services.
That’s the type of change that Afghanistan would like to see. There is a new potential there now. The level of cynicism expressed in the last thread is breathtaking. It shows how devastatingly delegitimizing the Iraqi War has become for any role for American power in the world. The poorest country on earth finding trillions of dollars of wealth is now bad news because American corporations might make some money in the deal. Afghanistan can’t catch a break like winning the lottery is not catching a break.
If I have a bias, I tend towards optimism. And I know that this discovery could cause more fighting and more international interference in Afghanistan. But it could be just what Afghanistan needed and the motivation to end a very long civil war.
How can anyone not be cynical about the war in Afghanistan? Where is that supposed to go? Now the administration has so-called positive news about newly discovered minerals which seems be a rehash of earlier sources. See Marc Ambinder today, The Atlantic Monthly, The Mineral Miracle? Or a Massive Information Operation?
He is very cynical. The US is going down the drain and everyone is supposed to get all exercised over Afghanistan. This thing has been going on for almost TEN YEARS and has gone nowhere. Karzai rips the US off and no one seems to feel humiliated. It’s disgusting.
Is the US addicted to war?
Truly breathtaking indeed. But then, when you consider the fact that people have become jaded under a Republican-led Washington DC for 18 of the past 30 years, it becomes a little less surprising.
“If Afghanistan becomes one of the largest exporters of iron, copper, and lithium, they will have the amount of wealth they need to actually fund a national government and provide security. They’ll have a lot of new jobs that should pay significantly more than what the average Afghani makes now. And the very existence of all this wealth is a powerful incentive for tribal leaders to work out their differences and create the kind of conditions where foreign investment is attractive. “
Seriously? Are you fucking serious? Cus I’d liek to know when you got so naive.
what happens in these cases -what ALWAYS HAPPENS DATING BACK HUNDREDS OF YEARS OF RECORDED HISTORY– is that those with power, be they colonialists, neo-coloniasts, empires, multi-national corporations, or indigenous warlords take the resources and ruin the country in doing so. It’s been done in Africa by the belgians, british, dutch, and french; in China and India by the British; in Nigeria by the Dutch and by Shell oil; and in the United States by our forefathers.
“If Afghanistan becomes one of the largest exporters of iron, copper, and lithium, they will have the amount of wealth they need to actually fund a national government and provide security.”
Who will form that government? Do you think it will be the reviled karzai? or do you think it’ll be someone like Mullah Omar?
seriously, I thought my weed was good. You must have a hotline to freakin’ Jamaica.
I don’t think Karzai has a future.
I can’t say how things will turn out in the short-term in Afghanistan. I can say that the existence of actual resources aside from heroin-producing poppy is a positive development that could certainly end badly. But your retelling of history completely ignores how oil has transformed a society of bedouins into a society with modern roads, ports, airports, a massive and well-serviced tourist industry, and much improved health and education levels.
It also introduced western imperial interference. Which would you choose? Camel-herding or modern hospitals?
But I’ve had a different take on these things for a long time.
And your retelling completely ignores what happened in Nigeria, Congo, and virtually all the rest of Africa as well as Latin America and much of Asia. “Imperial interference” doesn’t begin to describe the horrors that bought those modern hospitals.
But I guess America is the great model to which all nations must aspire, even as we continue our slide into the toilet. Have you ever lived outside the US? Do you have any idea of the cost of “progress” as imposed by all those benign imperialists? There are many sides to the question and they’ll never be answered. But your jingoistic Victorianism is both astounding and depressing. Which would you choose? Breathable air or Walmart? Herding camels or removal of your mountaintops?
How did it become your call that poppies are unacceptable resources but wage-slavery is progress? I hope you recover soon from this delusion that America’s interests define what is acceptable for the rest of the world.
So, what you’re basically saying is that Afghanistan is unfortunate to have these resources become modern-day Belgians are about to descend on them and force them into wage-slavery. Duly noted.
because, not become.
How many residents of Liberia or Congo have you heard celebrating their diamond “wealth”? How many Nigerians who were not members of the ruling kleptocracy have you heard being thankful for their oil? By your standards I guess they should all be grateful that they can no longer herd cattle but have the opportunity to work the mines for next to nothing.
I doesn’t matter whether the modern day wage-slavers are Belgians or Russians or Chinese or Americans or Afghanis. Mining is never a blessing except for the mine owners and the recipients of the minerals. Ask the tin miners in Chile or the diamond miners in Congo or the late beneficiaries of Massey Energy or the blood-spitting uranium miners in southern Arizona.
Okay, so let’s stop mining then. Iron, tin, copper, gold, silver, lithium? They’re overrated.
I don’t know if Liberia is thankful for their diamonds, but they’re probably thankful that USAID is helping them develop solar energy to light their schools and keep their vaccines cool.
There really is an unnerving unwillingness on the left to focus exclusively on our nation’s shortcomings. It’s not only biased but it’s electoral poison.
Of course we won’t stop mining. We’ll keep gnawing away at the planet until we’re history. What does that have to do with a celebration of “progress”, Victorian style? It’s not like exploitation has a cost or anything.
it has nothing to do with “our nation’s shortcomings” and everything to do with historical literacy.
hell man, you can see it going on RIGHT NOW in pennsylvania with Marcellus Shale. An outside, unregulated industry is drilling thousands of wells, and don’t have to pay so much as a dime in taxes to the state. meanwhile, as the explosions of the past two weeks have shown, these industries are dangerous and threaten our water supplies.
you’re taking an incoherent position on this.
You’re accusing me of not having ‘historical literacy’?
I get it.
Mining is bad, drilling is bad. Western powers developed that technology, so they’re bad. No country ever benefited from western investment. America sucks. Afghans are screwed not that they have some natural wealth. Obama sucks. I get it. You’re a parody of a Republican’s stereotype.
Now you’ve got it, BooMan.
That was snark, by the way. I happen to agree with BooMan about this news, put I’ve learned to take a wait-and-see attitude about everything since Obama’s election. I’m tired of the instant hysterics from both sides.
If you look at my original piece on this, I said that it could lead to a longer presence of troops, environmental damage, increased fighting among Afghans, staggering corruption, and more outside meddling in Afghanistan’s affairs. I didn’t sweep any of that under the rug. I merely stated that it was a discovery that could provide the internal funds needed for Afghanistan to form a national government, a lot of better paying jobs, and an incentive to stop the fighting.
Actually, what you said was more like it would allow YOU – i.e. the United States – to create a national government and a functional government in Afghanistan.
no, he’s getting bitchy because someone popped his balloon and doesn’t accept his premises.
so instead he’s having a tantrum.
BooMan’s having a tantrum? Funny, but you’re the one who responded with cheap insults and personal attacks, not him. Its one thing to disagree, but you insist on being a total asshole because someone holds a view that doesn’t line up with your own. Teabagger much?
Right. First he called me naive and accused my of smoking weed. Then he said I have no historical literacy and am incoherent.
On top of that, he insisted that the poorest country on earth will inevitably be worse off if it can establish one of the biggest lithium, copper, and iron industries on earth.
Then he told me I’m a dick for saying he resembles the Republican stereotype for a liberal.
no.
i called you a dick for misrepresentin gmy views, which you did.
I never “insisted that the poorest country on earth will inevitably be worse off if it can establish one of the biggest lithium, copper, and iron industries on earth.” What i wrote was:
Which is true. Circumstances might be very different is Afghanistan was a developed country with a decent government and infrastructure.
But you figured the way to characterize what i said was to boil it down to an unrecognizable strawman, claim that was what i meant, and then hold up your strawman for scorn. THAT is why i called you a dick, and the comment stands.
meanwhile, you say things like “I am saying that much of the response to this article on the left has been to focus exclusively on what it means for America and not what it could mean for Afghanistan.” Couldn’t I just boil that down to “shorter booman: poor afghans are more important than poor americans”? or perhaps “shorter booman: afghanistan is worth it if money is made.” Would that be fair? Would you accept that ridiculous characterization of what you wrote? Would I be something of a dick for doing that?
I don’t think I have misrepresented your views. But I think part of the problem is that you, as you say, don’t understand mine.
So, rather than engage in insults, let me try to succinctly make my point.
Afghanistan doesn’t have the money to have a national government. They don’t have the money to have an army or a national police force. This rather basic fact has haunted me ever since we started trying to build them an army and national police force because they can’t pay to sustain it even if we do a great job helping them build it. I guess the hope is/was that if we could get some security we could get them some foreign investment. And then maybe they could afford to sustain what they built on our dime.
So, that’s the starting point.
The problem, in addition to the above, is that Afghanistan had nothing of sufficient value for foreign investors to invest in. Sure, they might build water stations or power plants, maybe, but nothing on a scale to fund a national government.
Now, I have not said that these mineral assets should suddenly give us a reason to keep fighting and dying and throwing money to waste in Afghanistan. I said that it was a hopeful development. It’s hopeful because it provides Afghanistan with something I thought they did not have, which is a realistic way to become a functioning nation-state. That nation state may be as poor and dysfunctional as, say, Bolivia, but that would be an immense improvement. I made all the caveats about how energy companies have an abysmal record, and they have no infrastructure for doing megadeals with energy corps or for protecting the environment. I said that this could actually increase internal fighting and external meddling. But despite those caveats, I say this as hopeful because before they was no hope, no way, that Afghanistan can pull out of this thing.
If you want to call that take naive, incoherent, pot-addled, or dickish, go ahead.
So, who did develop the technology we use in drilling and mining then, Dave? Was that technology developed in Bangladesh?
America sucks compared to what? I live here. It’s fucking awesome.
I don’t want to live in Darfur because Darfur sucks in every measurable way when compared to Pennsylvania.
I have no idea why the mining of minerals is Victorian-style. I am enjoying my laptop, while I sit on a steel chair at a steel table. I also enjoy copper wiring and tin cans.
‘The joys of having your resources exploited.’ I like that. It’s so one-sided that it’s unfuckingbelievable. Our whole beef with Iran arose because BP wanted to totally exploit Iran’s resources and we supported them in that effort. But Iran kicked us out and went right on exploting those resources for themselves. The only difference? They gave themselves a better deal. There’s no reason why a country cannot benefit from the extraction of their mineral wealth, even if they need foreign investment to do it. It’s you who seem to be living in the 19th-Century.
Do you think West Virginians would vote to have God magically remove all the coal from their state so that they wouldn’t be exploited anymore? They wouldn’t. You take a completely one-sided view of things. Yes, mineral extraction brings problems with it any place it occurs. It also makes modern life possible.
“America sucks compared to what? I live here. It’s fucking awesome.“
Come on, you can’t really have missed the point that badly. Who here has said America sucks as a place to live? Answer: No one. To the degree that America sucks – and it does suck big time in quite a few ways – it is not as a place to live. As a place to live it is at worst OK.
America sucks? That’s a great thing to tell the voters in November.
why yes, that is EXACTLY what i am saying Booman, thanks for translating for me.
No really: i enjoyed the way you wring your own meaning out of statements that don’t go along with your rosy scenario.
seriously dude, that is one of the stupidest fucking responses to a comment i have ever seen you write and that is saying a lot. way to completely misrepresent my statement, you fucking dick.
You know what I think is dickish?
Telling the poorest most war-racked nation on earth that it’s unfortunate for them that they have the misfortune to have massive mineral wealth.
it’s not dickish at all. there’s a power vaccuum in afghanistan that’s filled by a US-backed figurehead who is reviled, warlords, and the Taliban. never mind that the “discovery” is something the US government has known about for years, which immediately begs the question “why is this being treated as breaking news”.
you wanna tell yourself this is great news for a war-torn country with no central authority, that’s fine. And when the resource wars inevitably begin in Afghanisatn, whether between warlords themselves, or between the warlords and the corrupt figurehead, you can tell everyone how great it is for people get killed as the war plays out just like you’ve been telling your readers barack obama is jesus christ come back to earth. hey look! i can play “let’s misrepresent what the other guy said” too. it’s fun!
I never knew that the Left was so negative. I’m getting quite an education this year.
Karzai is the Mayor of Kabul, plain and simple. outside of that city, he’s a dead man.
Unity is difficult with localized resources. Here are the players:
From the Afghan Geological Survey website:
So the lucky duckies are:
Laghman – Near Pakistan Northwest Territories – Taliban
Nandahar – Near Pakistan Northwest Territories – Taliban
Badakshan – Northern Alliance
Uruzgan – Adjacent to Kandahar – Birthplace of Mullah Omar – Taliban
Parwan – Near Kabul – Government
From a transportation perspective, the Laghman and Nandahar deposits are most accessible through the Northwest Territories to Peshawar for export.
The Uruzghan deposits are going to require road or rail into the Quetta area of Pakistan.
The Parwan deposits are transported either to Kandahar and Quetta or to Peshawar. The Kandahar-to-Quetta rout requires substantial road or rail investment to connect those two cities.
The Badakshan deposits are sort of left out in the cold. Through Tajikistan to Russia or through Urumqi to China. And neither easy to develop transportation in.
UA AID – Afghanistan: Activities by Province provides basic information and PR on US AID activities in each province.
It looks like unity under the Kharzai government will be very difficult to achieve. And the various Afghan Taliban groups have yet another reason for fighting harder.
It also raises the question of whether the territory will be partitioned, at a minimum breaking of the Northern Alliance controlled territories.
And geographically it does nothing to persuade poppy farmers to adopt another occupation.
A note about the Afghan Geological Survey:
it has been the glaring lack of natural resources that has made the future look so hopeless for [Afghanistan].
This is wrong. What has been lacking in Afghanistan is stability – as in a lack of violence and non-corrupt, non-arbitrary governance – and education. Those two factors are essential for creating a broadly successful economy. If having natural resources was a prerequisite, then countries like Taiwan, Singapore, Luxembourg, and the Bahamas would be desperately poor. They are not.
For all the flaws with the Saudi Royal Family and the society they’ve created, they have raised the standard of living and education and health of their people dramatically since the 1930’s.
The example of Saudi Arabia is inapplicable here because the amount of fossil fuel resources under the sand there is so wildly disproportionate to the population. The country has something like 23% of the world’s proven petroleum reserves, and the cost to produce is substantially less than most other places (estimated at $5-15/bbl). Unless Afghanistan becomes a major source for an irreplaceable material, the recent history of Saudi Arabia is not going to be replicated.
It shows how devastatingly delegitimizing the Iraqi War has become for any role for American power in the world.
The Afghanistan war has become illegitimate in its own right. We cannot force Afghanistan to become a pro-Western democracy at a point of a gun, and bombing a bunch of wedding ceremonies isn’t going to do it either. Nation-building should not be our goal there anyway. What we want is to keep international terrorists from operating out of Afghanistan. We can achieve that without US troops going village to village, looking for combatants that may be al-Qaeda, but mostly are locals who want the US to GTFO.
the reason I say that is that insurmountable problem facing Afghanistan is that it has no money. We’re trying to build a national army and police force that the Afghans could never afford to pay on their own. There’s a chicken and egg paradox facing the country, in that they can’t attract foreign investment until they have security but they can’t afford to create the security without foreign investment. We can build them forces and pay for them for a short time (actually, we are failing at even that) but we can’t pay for it going forward. And that’s the main reason I do not believe in our mission in Afghanistan.
Finding mineral wealth doesn’t change my opinion of our mission, but it does create another avenue for Afghanistan to achieve a national government than relying on us.
to the Western industrial system, they would have surrendered already and let the Americans occupy their country.
Since they do not wish to be slaves, they are fighting.
What this report tells us is not why Afghanis are fighting, but why Americans are trying to conquer them: We want the resources under their land.
This is, like, just about the oldest story in the world and it has not gotten less pathetic with time.
And the excuses for murder reek as badly now as they did the first time it was ever done.
Al Giordano of The Field: http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield
I don’t think that “cynicism” accurately captures the sentiment. I think it is in large part the expression of a realization that is fueling populist angst on both sides of the aisle – just how little influence we the people have over our foreign and even domestic affairs. It is compounded by the evidence of the last quarter century that the limits of our ability to shape the world according to our designs makes it all but pointless to intertwine ourselves in the affairs of other nations. That evidence goes something like this:
Want a free and sovereign Palestinian state? Fuck you, too bad.
Want a Darfur free of rape and murder? Fuck you, too bad.
Want US troops out of Central Asia? Fuck you, too bad.
Want war criminals brought to justice? Fuck you, too bad.
Want abortion to be free and available to all? Fuck you, too bad.
Want to see abortion abolished? Fuck you too, too bad.
Want DADT repealled/extended? Fuck you, too bad.
On many issues of importance to many people there has been no movement, no change that they can believe in, so when they are presented with new information that is presented as good news that can substantively change things they have a virulent, if predictible, response:
Fuck you.
We’re returning to the old American standard – isolationism. Short of a Hitler-Mousolinni tandem threatening the world I don’t see a reversing of this trend – it is as we have always been, on our own. We wouldn’t have it any other way.
shorter booman: “we need a Shah for Afghanistan. To ‘protect” our, i mean their, minerals.”
misrepresenting what the other guy said, wheeee!
I agree with you on this one, Brendan. Christ, Afghanistan already is world HQ for the world’s most profitable crop — opium. If Afghanistan has no money, what does that tell you? — the $’s going somewhere. Lots and lots of it. Why would anyone think it would be any different with mining? Except that poppies are a peasant crop with little negative impact on the environment. That’s not exactly the case with mineral exploitation.
Near as I can tell, that’s the real emotional driver for Boo’s strange argument: anything would be better than growing all those nasty, incredibly profitable poppies. Which, in my mind, translates to “they could be mining lithium instead, and keep us in iphones while they solve our drug problem for us.”
I don’t think your translation is correct, though. I think what he’s saying is that the drug trade is providing a killing for the Taliban, whereas this mining venture will provide better jobs for them.
I don’t agree with that stance, per se, but I don’t entirely disagree with it. If we’re not going to take a sensible position on drugs (a position that India changed for their own opium production, for the better), which we probably won’t, then why not argue that manufacturing and textile work is far better than the poppy?
interestingly, booman is cool with the opium if there’s a profit to be made. A couple of years back, we discussed a neat idea I had in which US pharmaceutical companies could purchase the opium from Afghanistan’s farmers at a rate better than that which the black market paid. After all, a number of our painkillers are made with opiates. So why weren’t we doing it?
So I made calls to a bunch of pharma companies and found out why that wasn’t in the cards (trade laws, essentially, and the lack of a credible partner in Afghanistan). But yeah, booman’s fine with the opium trade if it’s legitimized and done in a fashion the defunds the taliban, disincentivizes their recruitment efforts, and improves the living standards of farmers. and so am i for that matter.
my dad’s take on the mineral deposits is “should we attempt to steal this new wealth for ourselves, or should we leave it for someone else to steal?”
That’s my position as well. India has legalized the sale for medical use and it’s gotten the money (for the most part) out of shady hands. There’s been a lot of push to reverse that, of course.
That’s what I meant when I said “sensible drug policy.” We’ll never do this, though. We can’t even admit as our own national policy that marijuana has a fucking medical benefit.
Makes a hell of a lot more sense than getting them to grow something else, or destroying their crops.
But, as you’ve documented yourself, it’s not going to happen. So, I don’t see what’s so wrong with saying that mining and manufacturing would be far better for the people than the “nasty icky” poppy. That’s why I didn’t like Dave’s translation, and found it to be incorrect.
and I need to clarify a few things since Booman in his haste to make a point misrepresented my point of view.
I think in the absence of a stable decent government that mining and minerals wouldn’t be so good for the people because of the struggle to control them, whether foreign or internal. Someone pointed out the massive difference between the circumstances of the Saudis and the Afghans.
i am not, as Booman has suggested, of the point of view that “mining is bad”, “drilling is bad”. I mean, yes of course it is, but it’s also something that has been going on for a long time and sensible countries regulate and control it. we also know in countries with stable governments like our own (i think we’ve forfeited “decent” at this point) that mining and drilling is STILL a dirty problematic industry.
I want to add a totally different observation though. If what Ambinder and TPM are saying is true, that the US Geological Survey has known about mineral wealth in Afghanistan since 2007, I have to find the whole “discovery of minerals” article to be very cynical. Perhaps Booman sees it as a message to our allies that Afghanistan is soon going to be a place to invest and they should get on board: I don’t want to speak for him because I don’t presume to know his mind. However i see it as an invitation to corporate exploitation and warlordism.
color me pessimistic. the US has a long history of abandoning places where we’ve intervened, and the history of the extraction industry in poor chaotic countries is a matter of record. Booman sees hope there, while I feel like I’ve seen this show before.
Yeah, this is truth. I can’t really disagree with what you’ve said, I just can’t remove rose colored glasses when there is some glimmer of hope ’round the bend.
I think the US is probably trying to gin up interest among various tribal leaders and warlords in a deal to stop the fighting so they can all get fabulously rich. And, if that is what there are trying to do, I see that as a perfectly reasonable pitch to avoid this doomed plan to blast Kandahar back to Falluja. It also appears that the USG is actually getting to a point where they want to see some things happen with people in Kabul getting up to speed on how to do large financial deals involving multinational corporations and investment banks. So, they’re publicizing what’s being done and trying to feel for some international interest in making investments.
So, the timing on the article is probably driven by several factors simultaneously.
Personally, my comments on the article were less related to what the US will do, or should do, than on what it might mean for Afghanistan. I think the Karzai government is hopeless and I wish he’d flee like Mohammed Zahir Shah. He had a thirty year exile in Rome. Not so bad. He even got to come back in his old age. Not bad either. Karzai should follow his example.
Pretty typical. The U.S. put Karzai into power in order to serve its interests, and when he proved unwilling or unable to serve as expected, now he’s got to go. The problem is, of course, that you don’t have another potential puppet waiting in the wings. What’s a fading empire to do?!
.
(Washington Post) Nov. 19, 2009 – KABUL — The Afghan minister of mines accepted a roughly $30 million bribe to award the country’s largest development project to a Chinese mining firm, according to a U.S. official who is familiar with military intelligence reports.
In the case of the minister of mines, there is a “high degree of certainty,” the U.S. official said, that the alleged payment to Mohammad Ibrahim Adel was made in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, within a month of December 2007, when the state-run China Metallurgical Group Corp. received the contract for a $2.9 billion project to extract copper from the Aynak deposit in Logar province. Aynak is considered one of the largest unexploited copper deposits in the world.
The selection of the Chinese firm, known as MCC, has angered some Afghan and American officials who worked on the bidding process with Adel. They say he was biased toward the company and did not give a fair hearing to the proposals of Western firms. But the issue has also gained urgency because the ministry is reviewing offers for another massive mining deal — this time for an iron ore deposit west of Kabul known as Haji Gak — for which MCC is the front-runner.
James Yeager’s report on China’s bid for an Afghanistan copper mine
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
.
To repossess the Aynak copper mine for the Afghan people? Why now this MSM coverage, there is nothing new …
LOGAR PROVINCE, Afghanistan – Early on a recent morning we were driving to a shoot when an astonishing sight loomed up ahead of us. NBC News cameraman Steve O’Neill exclaimed, “It’s the Great Wall of China” when we saw the Hesco sandbags surrounding the Chinese workers camp at the Aynak copper mine in Afghanistan.
The Chinese workers – several hundred technicians – are part of a multibillion-dollar Chinese investment in Afghanistan’s largest-ever infrastructure project, the Aynak copper mine.
Discovered in 1974 but virtually dormant since the start of the Soviet War in 1979, the Aynak mine is believed to contain the world’s second-largest untapped copper deposits and could propel Afghanistan into the ranks of the world’s top 15 copper producers.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
Oui,
That`s a very good article the image links to.
Thanks
It is probably good for the notional country of Afghanistan to have mineral wealth. At least that’s something. But the key thing for american politicians to grasp is that we, america, have an extremely limited ability to create any kind of positive outcome there, mineral wealth or no. Adding the amoral and mercenary extraction industry does not improve things and probably makes them worse. The worst thing that could happen is if a continued and indefinite occupation is premised on somehow protecting or securing that mineral wealth. That there is credible speculation that this story is essentially a DoD press release does not encourage confidence.
Have any of you guys read “The Places In Between” by Rory Stewart ?
It is a journal of his walk across Afghanistan the winter of 2001-02.
I read it recently, and it reveals to me that Afghanistan is not what I would call a country, in the western sense of the word.
I don’t think these people want to be like us. They are not waiting eagerly to join the suits and ties world.
They are like us, in wanting to preserve the status quo, and wanting to improve their personal conditions, but that means something very different to them. Something more like a super-Taliban society. More money just means more and bigger weapons,
“Afghanistan is not what I would call a country, in the western sense of the word.
I don’t think these people want to be like us.
“
The western model does not necessarily suit every geographic region or society, western hubris notwithstanding. As difficult is it is for Americans to believe, not everyone in the world is dying to be like the United States.
However, I don’t buy the idea that Afghans want to be some kind of “super-Taliban society” whatever that is even supposed to mean, or that “more money just means more and bigger weapons”. Human beings everywhere are more alike than different in what they want, and human beings in all societies share the same core needs, emotions, and desires. Even more importantly they share the same set of rights, including the right to determine for themselves what form their society and their political and economic systems will take. Afghans, like Iraqis, and numerous others, have never been allowed to evolve those systems for themselves because outside powers have always tried to force them into a model that served the interests of the outside power.
Didn’t Saudi start with a strong central government, more or less? Institutions matter.
The logistics of Afghanistan make it seem unlikely that resource exploitation will happen any time soon, and if it does the political and military structure makes it seem likely that the money that stays locally will go to strengthen warlords and decrease the power of the central government – unless the US is willing to provide the troops to protect mining operations and shipping routes, which may be the biggest, easiest targets for sabotage and guerilla warfare possible.
I suppose it’s possible good will come of this in the next hundred years, but we’re in magic unicorn territory here.
No, Saudi Arabia did not have a strong central government.
Civil war was present throughout the pre-oil period.
If there is a major difference between Arabia in the 1930’s and Afghanistan today, it is that by the late 1930’s the Sauds had established a degree of dominance. But, remember, at that time the territory was made up of bedouins for the most part. It’s economy was rudimentary and power was established by force and revenues raised through extortion. By no means did they have any institutions to speak of.
OK, explain to me what this means:
“Setbacks cloud US plans to get out of Afghanistan” – headline in NYT
And tell me how that is not shoveling more effort in a futile attempt to try to redeem sunk costs.
We’re back in the “Peace with honor” syndrome stage of a futile war.