And in regards to our blog's name: The Big Four? Wilson, Clemenceau, George, and Orlando. I call Lloyd George, bitches. And George Big Africa Fu called Clemenceau. Spencer and Galen are now aware that they must fight it out over Orlando and Wilson. Suckers.
So today on the agenda: Afghanistan. I've already discussed the issue with a few friends and of course the topic popped up on NPR this morning (88.5 WAMU, hosted by American U in DC---> yes, a shameless plug for my own school). But not solely about the war (you're sick of hearing about that by now, yes?) Instead, let's discuss those mineral deposits that, according to some, are gonna "change the face of the conflict in Afghanistan," or even "change the face of Afghanistan," itself. Yes, you should hear the cynicism dripping from my voice.
Well let's address the issue from a US foreign policy stance: What is the US's best approach to this newfound information?
First, let's assume that these deposits are as large as everyone says they are. The most common number being tossed around is one trillion dollars worth of minerals. I've heard other numbers as well, but either way... it's a lot of money. So if it's worth it to extract the deposits, how does that affect the US?
Herein lies the general dilemma which faces US foreign policy: Does the US work entirely in its own national self interest or does it uphold those Wilsonian ideals of democracy and personal right and freedom? As a statesman, a policy analyst would surely argue that the US should work in its self interest. No one can deny the pragmatic intelligence in that course of action when addressing US security. This approach, however, does not consider morality, which the American people are quite adamant about upholding. Is it possible to reconcile the two?
One friend argues that, in summation, we should colonize Afghanistan and take control of the deposits. Perhaps not literally. But, he argues that what Afghanistan really needs right now is a new breed of government official bred "under Western tutelage in military and civil matters." Well let's considered how that's worked in the past: This same point was brought up by Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Paul Brinkley on NPR this morning, who referenced two historic examples: Chile and the Congo. The US CIA intervened in Chile during the War of Chilean Independence to derail Marxist presidential candidate Salvador Allende's obvious public support. The operation succeeded and Chile has since risen to be an economic and political power player in South America. In the DRC, the US supported anti-communist leader Mobutu and helped his rise to power. Under Mobutu's regime and US support, the political situation in the DRC (at that time, Zaire) was stable but rife with human rights violations, etc. History has shown that Western puppets, or Western "pupils," do not always make the wonderful leaders that the West hopes them to be.
Paul Brinkley argued on NPR that the mineral reserves in Afghanistan could be a path towards economic sovereignty in Afghanistan. The phrase he failed to mention was "economic stability." One critique of this potential mining industry (which, by the way, could tap not only lithium but iron, copper, cobalt, and gold as well) is that it could lead to fighting within Afghanistan over control of the mines. It's clear that Karzai has little control over his country. Many of the mineral deposits are located in Taliban strongholds such as Kandahar and the road to Kabul (part of the reason why they have not yet been tapped). If Afghan forces are permitted to control the mining operation (which is entirely within their rights) then there is a high probability that the deposits will fall into Taliban or warlord hands. Few Americans would wish to see this happen. However, another friend argues that US security is key and one of its greatest threats is international terrorism. If the mineral deposits fall into the hands of irresponsible (to put it lightly) Afghans and the internal fighting which some analysts predicts ensues, then the US has actually scored a point on the field of international politics. If the Afghans are fighting among themselves, then they're much less likely to focus on anti-US offensives with other non-Afghans. US security has been assured.
Two problems with that approach: Americans aren't going to like it and furthermore, it doesn't guarantee long term security. Eventually the fighting will die out (in five, ten, fifteen, fifty years) and American resentment returns (perhaps stronger this time, with blame placed on the US for allowing the war to occur). In order to guarantee security of America, one must guarantee security of the deposits. In order to guarantee security of the deposits, one must guarantee infrastructure (which just so happens to be part of the US's counterinsurgency action already). And infrastructure, my friends, is something that Afghanistan is sorely lacking. Mining essentials such as electricity and railroads are almost entirely non-existent and it would take years to build the infrastructure necessary to both mine the deposits and protect the mines. Even if this were accomplished, one of my greatest apprehensions would be that Afghanistan would become the Saudi Arabia of lithium. (Fun fact: A memo from the Pentagon used the exact same comparison). In such a situation, a few would reap the benefits of many and the Afghan people would remain in the same impoverished, inflammatory (metaphorically speaking, of course) state that they currently live in. The economy of the nation may be booming, as Brinkley argued, but the typical people would be no better off and the economic stability of the Afghan family would be just as poor as it is now.
One also ought to keep in mind that China an India have already placed bets on the mineral deposits. Both want in, as it is believed that the current deposits contain the largest un-mined deposits of iron in all of Asia. Well here's another fun fact: one mining association in the US estimates that even if one trillion dollars worth of resources could eventually be extracted from Afghanistan, it would take two trillion dollars worth of capital to do so. It's worth considering, why not leave the whole problem to China or India to deal with? Either way, as one article on Foreign Policy argues (and this is true despite the obvious left leanings of the article's author) someone has got to buy the resources once they're mined. And if the US wants to buy them, well then on the world market that will happen.
What the US really needs (and what it needs to do with its entire foreign policy) is to quickly come up with a unified approach to this part of the situation in Afghanistan and actually do something in accordance with said policy.
Here's the reason for my cynicism. First, it's been well known for quite a while by anyone who knows anything about Afghanistan that these deposits exist. Click here to see irrefutable support. So if the American government has known about these deposits for well on thirty years, what's the big deal now? A spokesperson for the Pentagon admitted to the Times that this information has been on hand for several years. He also stated that the administration made an announcement because "The trillion dollar figure seemed to be newsworthy." Well I'd hazard guess and place my bets with those who claim that the Obama administration is looking for a little shoot in public ratings here what with the slowly sinking morale concerning the war in Afghanistan. Sure, it's a claim that bodes well for the US if successfully attended to. Unfortunately, there are severe obstacles hindering any immediate positive results from mineral mining in the area (resources, capital, power hungry warlords...) Frankly, if this information has been out for several years and nothing's been done yet, I can't say I see anything pertinent being done about it in the near future.
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/15/world/asia/15afghan.html?src=tptw
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100614/ts_nm/us_afghanistan_minerals
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article7149696.ece
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=10909407
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100614/ap_on_bi_ge/us_afghanistan_mineral_treasures
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7150081.ecehttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/the-geologists-view-it-could-be-a-gold-mine--but-not-for-a-long-time-2000508.html
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/06/201061594440469863.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-fg-afghan-minerals-20100615,0,4058818,print.story
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/14/is_afghanistan_really_the_next_el_dorado
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/14/minerals_in_afghanistan_mais_oui
NPR radio
For more information on Afghanistan, see:
http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/
Also in today's news:
Refugee crisis in Kyrgyzstan continues but aid is on the way.
Congress meets with oil executives on Capital Hill this morning in order to discuss the environmental crisis. --NPR
And if you decide to travel to Afghanistan, here's a few words you may want to know:
I'm taking a class in Pashto and it's full immersion with no writing involved (scary? indeed). Therefore, please be aware that these spellings are completely phonetic.
Hello: Salam walay kum.
Response: Walay kum-e salam.
What is your name: Sta su num day?
My name is: Zama num InsertName day.
Author's note: All views by others have been re-stated to the best of my ability. I take responsibility for any subsequent misunderstandings and apologize for any misinterpretations.
There is no way that I'm Wilson.
ReplyDeleteComment made by a friend:
ReplyDeleteI have several points to contest with you.
First. "This approach, however, does not consider morality, which the American people are quite adamant about upholding." Jessa, for one who claims the mantle of a cynic this is a strikingly idealistic thing to say, and in this case I'm afraid wholly incorrect. The vast majority of the American people don't give two shits about Afghanistan, and less than 20% of them can even point it out on a map. They are perfectly fat and happy so long as they have their American Idol and other distractions from the real world fed to them through the television with some McDonalds to go with it. The only "morality" the American people care about is the one that continues to provide them with their care free lifestyle. This is historically true as well. The American people didn't bat an eye at the genocide of the American Indian and the destruction of over 500,000 Filipinos during the American conquest of their homeland, nor did they particularly care when we incarcerated tens of thousands of Japanese Americans in concentration camps and stripped them of their personal property. Lastly, morality is a subjective thing anyway, and changes from person to person based upon their own personal views and perspective.
Second. The comparison between Salvador Allende and Hamid Karzai is akin to a comparison of apples and oranges. Salvador Allende, as you pointed out, had widespread popular support and would likely have won had the CIA not yanked the rug out from under him. Karzai is despised by a clear majority of Afghans (most notably the Pashtun) as a corrupt idiot, and an incompetent one at that. The Afghans respect leaders who are honest, show a clear sense of purpose and direction, and above all demonstrate strength. They have for millenia picked leaders that have these qualities, and it has served them well over the years, allowing them to defeat two empires and do a number on the United States as well. The Afghans have done this without the help of liberal democracy, and don't have a particularly favorable view of it anyway at the moment due to the horde of corrupt incompetents it has allowed to take power. If the West, and yes by that I mean the United States, cleaned house and hurled Karzai and his cronies from office, took charge of the government until a new generation of leaders could be raised, and demonstrated the aforementioned qualities, the Afghans would be willing to follow our direction. Certainly more so than they would Karzai's.
Third. Leaving these deposits to China and India isn't something America can afford to do. The new great game of economic imperialism has begun, and at the moment China is far far ahead of us, having essentially bought Africa, and is stripping the resources of the dark continent as we speak. America and India are on par right now in terms of economic advantage, namely because their education system sucks ass. (The economist rates 37 Indian engineers as equivalent to 1 American engineer) This will not remain the case for long however, and the US needs to act quickly in order to retain it's place as a superpower. The market price of several of the minerals mentioned, specifically Lithium and Gold, is only going to rise in the future, making current predictions irrelevant. The time to get that stuff out of the ground and into the hands of the US is now, because as you stated in your article, China and India are already making efforts to exploit it.