Deposits for $1 Trillion Discovered in Afghanistan

Remove all ads!

I think there are enough political implications for this to go into this alley... You have probably seen the Reuters report, this is slightly more detailed:

Spoiler

WASHINGTON — The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.

The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe.

An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the "Saudi Arabia of lithium," a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and BlackBerrys.

The vast scale of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth was discovered by a small team of Pentagon officials and American geologists. The Afghan government and President Hamid Karzai were recently briefed, American officials said.

While it could take many years to develop a mining industry, the potential is so great that officials and executives in the industry believe it could attract heavy investment even before mines are profitable, providing the possibility of jobs that could distract from generations of war.

"There is stunning potential here," Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the United States Central Command, said in an interview on Saturday. "There are a lot of ifs, of course, but I think potentially it is hugely significant."

The value of the newly discovered mineral deposits dwarfs the size of Afghanistan’s existing war-bedraggled economy, which is based largely on opium production and narcotics trafficking as well as aid from the United States and other industrialized countries. Afghanistan’s gross domestic product is only about $12 billion.

"This will become the backbone of the Afghan economy," said Jalil Jumriany, an adviser to the Afghan minister of mines.

American and Afghan officials agreed to discuss the mineral discoveries at a difficult moment in the war in Afghanistan. The American-led offensive in Marja in southern Afghanistan has achieved only limited gains. Meanwhile, charges of corruption and favoritism continue to plague the Karzai government, and Mr. Karzai seems increasingly embittered toward the White House.

So the Obama administration is hungry for some positive news to come out of Afghanistan. Yet the American officials also recognize that the mineral discoveries will almost certainly have a double-edged impact.

Instead of bringing peace, the newfound mineral wealth could lead the Taliban to battle even more fiercely to regain control of the country.

The corruption that is already rampant in the Karzai government could also be amplified by the new wealth, particularly if a handful of well-connected oligarchs, some with personal ties to the president, gain control of the resources. Just last year, Afghanistan’s minister of mines was accused by American officials of accepting a $30 million bribe to award China the rights to develop its copper mine. The minister has since been replaced.

Endless fights could erupt between the central government in Kabul and provincial and tribal leaders in mineral-rich districts. Afghanistan has a national mining law, written with the help of advisers from the World Bank, but it has never faced a serious challenge.

"No one has tested that law; no one knows how it will stand up in a fight between the central government and the provinces," observed Paul A. Brinkley, deputy undersecretary of defense for business and leader of the Pentagon team that discovered the deposits.

At the same time, American officials fear resource-hungry China will try to dominate the development of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth, which could upset the United States, given its heavy investment in the region. After winning the bid for its Aynak copper mine in Logar Province, China clearly wants more, American officials said.

Another complication is that because Afghanistan has never had much heavy industry before, it has little or no history of environmental protection either. "The big question is, can this be developed in a responsible way, in a way that is environmentally and socially responsible?" Mr. Brinkley said. "No one knows how this will work."

With virtually no mining industry or infrastructure in place today, it will take decades for Afghanistan to exploit its mineral wealth fully. "This is a country that has no mining culture," said Jack Medlin, a geologist in the United States Geological Survey’s international affairs program. "They’ve had some small artisanal mines, but now there could be some very, very large mines that will require more than just a gold pan."

The mineral deposits are scattered throughout the country, including in the southern and eastern regions along the border with Pakistan that have had some of the most intense combat in the American-led war against the Taliban insurgency.

The Pentagon task force has already started trying to help the Afghans set up a system to deal with mineral development. International accounting firms that have expertise in mining contracts have been hired to consult with the Afghan Ministry of Mines, and technical data is being prepared to turn over to multinational mining companies and other potential foreign investors. The Pentagon is helping Afghan officials arrange to start seeking bids on mineral rights by next fall, officials said.

"The Ministry of Mines is not ready to handle this," Mr. Brinkley said. "We are trying to help them get ready."

Like much of the recent history of the country, the story of the discovery of Afghanistan's mineral wealth is one of missed opportunities and the distractions of war.

In 2004, American geologists, sent to Afghanistan as part of a broader reconstruction effort, stumbled across an intriguing series of old charts and data at the library of the Afghan Geological Survey in Kabul that hinted at major mineral deposits in the country. They soon learned that the data had been collected by Soviet mining experts during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, but cast aside when the Soviets withdrew in 1989.

Interesting, Afghanistan might turn out to be more than an opium-producing political backland after all. Still the part about "resources could be used by the Talibans" ring a little hollow - I doubt a pseudo-tribal militia has the know-how to organize such operations, so one way or another I expect them to be developed by either foreigners or the national government.

I have to admit, one of my first questions was "What was a team of geologists doing in a warzone?" .

 

My one would be:

"And the Soviets just left all that data behind to gather dust in a library for years, where anyone could pick it, without ever bothering to either profit from it or at least make sure no one else does?"

I know they had their own issues at the time, but running a large scale geological survey for the heck of it and abandoning it, even though apparently it was indicative enough to get a group of geologists in a war zone really really interested, on a glance, "by chance"?

I sure wouldn't mind seeing that original research...

Either someone made a mistake, wanted to make a mistake, or someone else entirely needed a nice retrospective explanation for the treasure trove.

Sun does wonders for rambling. I'll stop now. *looks for some shade*

 

One version that I heard was that Afghani geologists stashed the data themselves - the Russians probably had some locals helping them; possibly the Russians took their copies with them, and what was found was the copies the local scientists had. Still, yes, it does look a little curious - almost like a lost treasure map, as it were .

On the other hand, I would say it is at least possible - considering that it happened in the late 80s, and the USSR was getting out of Afghanistan, I'd say there was more than a little chaos and no time for getting back for a forgotten folder or two .

 

The USSR left a lot of stuff in Afghanastan when they pulled out. A few maps wouldn't surprise me.

 

This war has been dragging on for what, nine years? And now they have found one trillion dollars worth of natural resources. Gee, what a coincidence. It's almost as if the war is being prolonged so that special interest groups can milk Afghanistan for all its worth.

 

A friend of a friend had a stint in Afghanistan as a private contractor. Apparently mercanaries do the bulk of the fighting. This is anecdotal of course, but then it's hardly a secret that there are mercanaries fighting in Afghanistan. Why in God's name does a country with one of the largest military's in the world need to rely on private security firms? Makes you think, doesn't it? Could it be that some people are profiting from the prolonged warfare and instability in Afghanistan? No, say it ain't so!

Look at it this way. The United States is the most powerful nation on Earth. The powers that be chose to enter Afghanistan, the decision was not forced upon them. Therefore it stands to reason that the powers that be could also leave Afghanistan whenever they wished to do so. They could probably 'win' if they wanted to as well, although that's a little difficult when the government doesn't provide clear, concise objectives on what constitutes winning (How convenient!)

Anyway, the ball is, and always has been, in the United States court.

Therefore I must conclude that 'they' have not chosen to withdraw since they do not think it is not profitable for 'them' to do so. And when you think about it, this makes sense. As things stand, Afghanistan is a weak country with an unstable government that is strongly susceptible to foreign influence. Westerners and foreign interests have free reign over the country. As we can see, they are sniffing out resources to harvest, like those dogs they have to sniff out truffles. Stuff keeps getting blown up, which opens up opportunities for construction agencies. People are needed to blow stuff up, which puts money in the pocket of private security firms.

And no doubt Afghanistan will be required to take out a big fat loan with the IMF to finance reconstruction. And maybe, just maybe, it will come with big fat conditions and big fat interest rates, further holding the Afghani hostage to foreign influence.

And while particular people are getting rich, the expenses of the war are all covered by you, the taxpayer. But hey, don't worry. It's all to fight terrorism. Although one must wonder why they don't talk about Osama these da... WAIT, LOOK OVER THERE, IT'S A MEXICAN STEALING YOUR JOB!

 

Actually Western influences have a lot of pull in Afghanistan but it isn't as if they run the place. Not to long ago it wouldn't have been outlandish to ask if the "West" really wanted Karzai.... problems with corruption, inefficiency, and so on.

The Taliban couldn't mine the stuff themselves right now but they could try to extort money from whomever does. Transporting the minerals out in particular may be difficult if the Taliban wasn't paid "protection money" (as businesses may refer to mob payments in parts of the US).

Some have said the war in Afghanistan could be won (the Taliban are not that popular after all and the bulk of the population doesn't want them back).

But the "West" is leary of putting down the actual number of troops that it would take to win-that is several hundred thousand. So it struggles with the slow fight with fewer troops.

Also the Taliban could really be run down if support and fall back areas in Pakistan were destroyed. But as one US General noted "How do you invade an ally?" So unless Pakistan wipes out those the Afghan Taliban (or at least parts of it) will have a place to fall back to.

The mineral resources in Afghanistan could make it "worth it" for some companies to support backing the War. So that means someone, maybe not the taxpayer directly, does have a financial interest in winning in Afghanistan.

As it is the most important key to winning in Afghanistan as things are now is the Afghan government. At least a somewhat disturbing thought.

Though if a way could be found it would likely rely at least partly on dislike of the Taliban by most Afghans.




The US (and NATO) may have chosen to enter into Afghanistan, but only after 9/11. You could possibly argue that the Taliban could have been bribed into handing over Osama afterwards rather than being fought against as his allies.

But that leads you to 2 different problems.

First, did he have enough support with the Taliban that they would still side with him?

Second, even if he didn't, would making deals with the Taliban set up one more situation where the US had made agreements with an unpopular and tyrannical bunch? Not exactly the type of thing some people would be happy about and one that could potentially lead to its own problems later.

 

They have troops throughout the land, and the capability to install a puppet government. The Americans are calling the shots.

A weak, inefficient puppet leader suits their purposes well.

Yeah. I'm sure that the current puppet government and Western interests won't take their cut.

Of course it can be.

Even if I bought this, I would still ask a simple question: Why has the United States not withdrawn? What incentive do they have for remaining in a quagmire for *nine years*? Call me crazy, but I'm of the opinion that people usually don't prolong a war which they could end at any time unless they are profiting from it. The fact that the American government hasn't provided the public with any clear concise objectives, accompanied by a timeline for achieving those objectives, strongly suggests that victory is not a primary concern in Afghanistan.

Wait! So the American government picked an objective which it knew it could not achieve (ie. elimination of the Taliban insurgents)? Jeez, if I needed any further confirmation of ulterior motives, there it is right there.

Not just the mineral resources. But I find it rather ironic that the US, in its attempts to 'help' Afghanistan, happened to magically find a trillion dollars worth of resources. Something which apparently the Afghanis didn't even know about (although I may be wrong about that).

When it becomes more profitable for special interest groups to end the war, they will.

The Afghans were better off under the Taliban. For the Americans to act as if they did the natives a favour by bombing the **** out of them and stationing tens of thousands of troops in their villages is laughable, especially given all the insurgent groups. If the Afghanis wanted an American presence in Afghanistan, insurgents wouldn't be such a strong presence. Simple logic, really.

The Taliban were willing to negotiate with the United States government prior to 9/11. Indeed, evidence suggests that they offered to *hand Osama over*, both in 1998, and again 2001. But American 'diplomacy' ignored this, and saw fit to spit in the face of a generous offer. They created the situation. They *chose* to create a conflict. Therefore I must conclude that it was profitable for whoever pulls the strings to do so.

 

No, we have the potential to call the shots. And we may indeed start doing so with $1T at stake. If so, I don't think it'll end well for us.

Because of the politicians. I recently read an analysis of this talking about the influence of 'hawks' and 'doves' on US policy. We have lots of both, and lots of them have lots of money. As a result, many politicians try to please both, and of those that only please one, they're about equally split.

Nine years in? If that was the plan all along, they managed to botch it pretty well.

This is just plain stupid. Under the Taliban, women were little more than cattle (less in some senses) and any men who even thought about challenging the ruling order were publicly executed.

 

'We'? 'Us'? Oh my goodness, I made no reference to you. You're just a pawn! A good little cow who pays his taxes dutifully to the gubmint so that special interest groups and milk Afghanistan dry. You certainly aren't 'calling the shots'.

Um, yes, exactly. There exists a state of perpetual war. Think carefully: In what fictional universe did a perpetual state of war exist to benefit the powers that be? It begins with 19, and ends with 84.

No, you clearly haven't read anything I've posted. Nine years in isn't evidence of a botched job, quite the contrary. It's evidence that *exactly what the dominant special interest groups wanted to happen, has happened*. Super-powers who start wars don't prolong them unless it suits them to do so.

[/quote]

That's it! Puff up your chest in indignation and bleat the party line! The Afghanis are better off with a strong foreign military presence in Afghanistan, which is why there are about a dozen insurgent groups resisting the invasion! They are better off being carpet bombed and having foreign interests discovering 1 trillion dollars worth of their resources! They are better off without a government who doesn't suck the wang of Big Brother on demand! They are better off with a resurgence in the opium trade and dancing boys (ergo. virtual prostitution of young boys)!

Boy oh boy, I think that the United States would be better off if it were invaded and occupied by the U.K. Perhaps the benevolent occupiers would help reduce the rampant racist and violent crime that wracks your country.

Do you want to be liberated from your oppressive government? Oh wait, sorry, your opinion doesn't matter.

 

I don't, certainly not directly, call the shots in local city government. Is that a sign this is part of a conspiracy there too? Or that I am just one voter out of many and not an elected official myself.

If the US was milking Afghanistan dry we seem to have done a poor job of it thus far (with what seems to be more money and resources currently flowing to rather than from Afghanistan).

The argument that the US wants continual war contradicts the idea that the US is after resources as the one contradicts the other due to the difficulties it places on carrying the other out.

Conspiracies can and have happened, but that doesn't mean that they always are or that whatever someone dreams up as part of conspiracy theorizing is actually true.

Actually the argument has been made that the W administration pulled military units and resources from Afghanistan at an important time and shifted them to Iraq. Thus a war that could have been completed wasn't for the sake of a different war that was arguably much more one of choice.

Saying the US started the war in Afghanistan is quite a questionable comment.

1st you seem to be ignoring that the Taliban itself had a hand in the opium trade and still does. And the question could be put forward over if the time they actually appeared to suppress it to some extent (before the US was there when they were on their way to controlling all of Afghanistan) wasn't actually opposition to the opium trade as a whole but just an attempt to preserve their own control over the local part of it and an attempt to maintain the value of the stockpile the Taliban had already put together.

2nd its pretty much a given fact that the Taliban was a very brutal in Afghanistan when it had power. Prostitution of young boys is not a good thing but people humane enough to be concerned about it should also be concerned about all the terrible things the Taliban did.

3rd there are surveys that indicate that Taliban is unpopular in Afghanistan to this day.

4th there are also surveys that indicate the Afghan population as a whole was glad the US kicked the Taliban out and for years after "invading" Afghanistan felt positively towards the US-was glad they did so.

See above on my thoughts about conspiracy theories and "big brother".

So do you think Germany would be a better place today if it was left in Nazi hands?

Foreign troops don't always indicate an occupation when they are present somewhere. Or do you think that the presence of US troops in the UK during WWII indicated that the US had invaded and occupied it during that war rather than formed an alliance with it?

And, as I mentioned, the opinion of the Afghan people has been anti-Taliban for some time now.

 

Yes.

But to be fair, a local government is far more representative of the people than a federal government and opposition which takes payouts from special interest groups. The corruption within local government is relatively contained. The rot spreads deeper the larger the bureaucracy becomes.

Of course money and resources are flowing into Afghanistan. I never denied this, and indeed, it supports my claims of a 'conspiracy' (a conspiracy isn't a conspiracy when it is plainly obvious to all). Money and resources, paid for by the taxpayer, flow into Afghanistan. These are then pocketed by foreign corporations who are providing reconstruction or 'security' services. Alternatively, large corporations are establishing a foothold on foreign soil to reap the rewards at a later date. This is called an 'investment'.

Let's say that I will be very surprised if the Afghanis receive more than the table scraps from these 'investments'.

I don't see how one contradicts the other.

Ah, I see. So the United States Government can't win or end a war it *chose* to enter into, because it also *chose* to enter into another war with a nation under false pretexts. I can't find an eye-roll smiley big enough to express how I feel about that weak justification.

Wait, what? Are you now rewriting history in order to act as an apologist for a government which forcibly appropriates your money to sink into two quagmires which have no perceivable benefits for the common man? Wow, if I were your wife, there is no way in hell I would let you handle the assets.

Just out of curiosity, how have *you* personally benefited from the tax dollars that have been spent in Afghanistan and Iraq. If you want to demolish my claims of 'conspiracy', then it would help your case to demonstrate that the wars provide some tangible benefit to you, the common man.

Actually, the Taliban banned opium cultivation and production.

'To some extent'? They reduced production from 12,600 acres to only 17 acres (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban). That's a *741* fold decrease in opium production within two years. Hell, I doubt even America's 'War on Drugs' has been that successful.

Even if this were true (highly questionable and unsupported propaganda), their motives are irrelevant to the fact that opium production plummeted due to the Taliban, and experienced a huge resurgence due to the change in status quo brought about by the invasion.

Prostitution of young boys is not a good thing BUT?! BUT?! We are talking about the virtual enslavement and sodomy of young boys here, some who may be as young as seven years old. For you to just dismiss it, as if the young boys were just being forced to wear goofy looking clogs, is atrocious.

Because the Taliban doing terrible things is oh so much worse than American puppets doing terrible things? Right.

'There are surveys'? Who put together these surveys? Did Mohammed in the bombed out shack with no telephone have his say? Did the dancing boy who prances about for 60 year old wizened men before being taken out to provide his master and their friends with fellatio have a say?

Furthermore, have the citizens been surveyed about whether they want a continued American presence blighting their country?

Because people love to be occupied by foreigners, and regularly carpet bombed by occupying armies. If such surveys exist, I'd wipe my rear with them.

It might have been. *gasp* Oh no I didn't!

When foreign troops depose a government, install a puppet regime, are constantly fighting insurgents, shoot civilians, carpet bomb villages, and refuse to leave when its clear that popular opinion is against them, then yes, I'd say that they indicate occupation. Wouldn't you?

Ah, so the US deposed the presiding government of the United Kingdom and routinely bombed the citizenry?

And do you mean to tell me that France wasn't occupied by the Nazis during WWII, because the Vichy Government had an alliance with Hitler?

 

To a degree you are correct in that greater opportunity for corruption occurs the larger the organization is. But that doesn't mean the organization must be more corrupt simply because it is larger.

Also if you're referring to the bribing of candidates running for election under the guise of campaign donations I agree that it is corruption.

However, if the US adopted that would you be fair enough to note corruption had been cut back?

Trying to have it both ways? Heads it is a conspiracy and tails it is a conspiracy? You said the US was milking Afghanistan dry, now after it has been pointed out that more resources are flowing to rather than from Afghanistan you're changing the tense from present to future.

Did you make a mistake in the terminology you used or were you simply trying to make your comment sound better after I pointed out that the present reality contradicted it?

If there is a lot of development in Afghanistan I don't know. Corporations (would would likely move in) are hardly known for their generosity. On the other hand it is possible the lives of Afghans could improve a great deal. It may depend on what rules are laid down and how much they are enforced.

If the minerals are as great in supply and as rare as it would seem then there would arguably be an opportunity for people in the areas to call for worker rights as a condition of doing business there. Doesn't mean it will or will not happen, just that it may.

Continued war and, more pointedly, allowing (which is what you are implying) the Taliban to threaten any mining operations would make them more risky and less likely to happen.

If the Taliban is allowed to continue it will likely interfere with development, use, and transportation of said mineral resources. Thus claiming the US is letting the Taliban continue and that the US is there for mineral resources contradicts.

Don't dodge. My point was that effort was diverted from one to the other.

Are you a 9/11 truther? If not then it is quite understandable to see the arguments for why the US would get into a fight with Al Queda and its Taliban allies in Afghanistan.

Last I checked wars often came with a price, why are you asking for a benefit?

I noticed you didn't mention the sentence right after the very next.

"Another source claims opium production was cut back by the Taliban not to prevent its use but to increase its price, and thus increase the income of Afghan poppy farmers and tax revenue."

Doing some selective editing when what is written doesn't always support your argument?

If the Taliban already had a stockpile of opium and made money off the opium trade then it isn't impossible for them to try to cut back on production in order to try to boost the value of what they already had in hand.

Seeing you say something is "highly questionable" strikes as more than a little ironic.

And their motives are quite relevant as they indicate if the Taliban was actually interested in stopping the opium trade (and drug use) or not.

Perhaps I could have phrased it better. I understand that this is a type of sex slavery involving children and I think it, like sex slavery in general, is a terrible thing. I don't think that its (re)appearance in Afghanistan is justifies calling for letting the Taliban return to power. Especially as it was also quite likely supported the practice of forcing young girls (quite underage) to marry (doesn't doing so count as a form of sex slavery too?) and certainly was part of a routine of killing people for a long list of reasons that don't justify it.

First I have already questioned just how much the Afghan government is an "American puppet". And I doubt the practice of using/abusing "dancing boys" you referred to before was by a request of the US government-to add one more thing to the list of what has happened in Afghanistan that the US doesn't approve of nor want.

And second I would point out most (if not all) of the people on this thread wouldn't want any terrible things to be going on in Afghanistan and I suspect a government that actually influenced by the current administration is less likely to do them. To add to that if the government of Afghanistan was independent of any US influence it still may not be as bad as the Taliban was/is.

Right now the bottom rung on possible governments in Afghanistan, ranked by how they would treat their people, is the Taliban.

So you didn't know people had been doing surveys for years now? You are well researched enough on Afghanistan to know about dancing boys but not any of the surveys done by the UN, BBC, various news organizations in the US, and probably a few NGOs as well?

Are you honestly missing some info or are you trying to avoid acknowledging information that doesn't support your point?

While there are US military units in Afghanistan and battles it is inaccurate to describe it as "occupied" and certainly inaccurate to describe the people there as being "regularly carpet bombed".

Moreover you are also not acknowledging a great deal of the Afghans civilians killed were killed by the Taliban-who have also sometimes used Afghans as human shields when they fight (possibly with the hope some will be killed).

So you are lending your support to a regime of one of history's best known modern mass murderers. Doing so on humanitarian grounds?

For several years it was clear popular opinion was with the US and NATO in Afghanistan and even now it is also against the Taliban. Funny how you talk about popular opinion yet ignore surveys used to actually measure it.

And no I do not agree with you that the USA currently has an occupation going on in Afghanistan.

I already disagreed with several points you just listed (do you think repeating something wrong makes it accurate?)

A response to your overly simplistic and inaccurate implication that the presence of foreign troops in a nation means that nation is "occupied".

And considering the citizenry of Afghanistan were glad the US "deposed" the Taliban complaining that they were booted out of power hardly helps your case.

Vichy France didn't control all of the French territory the Germans held direct control over much of it and that is an actual occupation.

The arguments as to if Vichy France itself was a separate, or even valid, state go back and forth. Didn't treat german spies well (argument for being a separate state) but did things against their own desire for Nazi Germany (handing over whomever the Nazi's wanted). Do you happen to have much in the way of election results from Vichy France. My understanding is that was run, at least partly, by French Fascists.

In any case I would look to the relationship between Germany, Japan, and/or S. Korea of today and the US and say none are puppets of the US and I suspect, very much, that this is where Afghanistan is likely headed (at least if actual desires of US pan out).

Meaning the US would have a relationship with it but it is not, and certainly will not be in the future, a puppet state to the US.

 

Think again. 'We' just do it in November, instead of every day.

I would respond to the rest of this paranoid babbling, but I don't feel like bothering, and pplr seems to have a penchant for it.