Slashdot Mirror


Afghan Tech Minerals — Cure, Curse, Or Hype?

Gooseygoose writes "The Pentagon revealed recently that Afghanistan has as much as $1 trillion in mineral wealth, a potential game changer in the ongoing conflict there. Many news outlets have picked up this story, some simply repeating the official talking points, while others raise serious concerns. Is this 'discovery' just hype, or will it truly alter the landscape of the Afghan war? Perhaps more importantly, can this mineral wealth (whether real or illusory) pave the way to a peaceful and prosperous Afghanistan, or is it more likely to drive geopolitical feedback loops that plunge the region further into turmoil?" Relatedly, Marc Ambinder wrote a few days ago in the Atlantic that the US had knowledge of vast mineral deposits in Afghanistan several years ago, giving the recent announcement the appearance of a PR campaign.

29 of 184 comments (clear)

  1. Do I have to choose? by 2obvious4u · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is all three.

    1. Re:Do I have to choose? by Stargoat · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's a funny thing that having wonderful natural resources dampens other parts of the economy. It's called Dutch Disease, and was diagnosed some time ago. Kind of makes you want to re-read Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel.

      --
      Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    2. Re:Do I have to choose? by Iron+Condor · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It is all three.

      I doubt it is hype. There's technologies deployed right this moment in Afghanistan that people could only dream about as little as five years ago. The sheer flood of data generated by any attempt to map an entire country's mineral deposits would have been impossible to even just store (much less process) when people were unaccustomed to using the term "TB". It is not in the least surprising that we're now finding things like this that were there all along right under our nose. If only we had the capability to store a kilobyte of spectral data per square meter of a whole country.

      I also doubt that this will make Afghanistan any better off. In terms of mineral wealth, Africa is the richest continent on earth. Most of the interesting metals (from uranium to gold) and most of the expensive non-metal materials (from diamonds to sapphires) are found in Africa. And all that wealth has bough it ... what exactly?

      (And I am not in the least suggesting that the Pentagon has been mapping Afghanistan in a humanitarian effort to chart its wealth. The same spectroscopic technologies that tell you "this mountain is full of Chromium" will also tell you that it is "full of opium", "full of dynamite" or even "full of people").

      --
      We're all born with nothing.
      If you die in debt, you're ahead.
    3. Re:Do I have to choose? by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Imperialism, schmerialism. It's a loaded word anyhow. The question is, did anyone over there ask for our help? If not, their problems (and their mineral assets) are none of our concern.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    4. Re:Do I have to choose? by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The question is, did anyone over there ask for our help?

      I have memories of them asking for us to not cease sending them help when the USSR stopped invading in the late eighties.

      As for the minerals - geological surveys take time, this one identifies deposits scattered throughout the country, so it's fairly thourough. The resources have been know of for some time, but I think this announcement was delayed until the survey was complete.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    5. Re:Do I have to choose? by spun · · Score: 3, Funny

      Maybe we could trade some of our irony for their lithiumy and coppery.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    6. Re:Do I have to choose? by Anpheus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think part of the equation is accessibility. If the resources are close enough to the ground that you can get villagers to dig them out for you by pointing a gun at them, you might end up with some of the worser situations in Africa.

      If the resources require a significant investment of technology and infrastructure, well, large companies will come in and employ locals and bring in a lot of money, which may bring in other businesses to serve them.

      I'm hoping these huge deposits are deep, deep under the ground. Just barely within range of our instruments, and that the dollar figure to get to them is as large as possible. Because if all it takes is a shovel, Afghanistan is in for a ride.

  2. It is just PR... by Maddog+Batty · · Score: 5, Informative

    El Reg just thinks it is a complete PR exercise.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/18/afghanistan_mineral_report/

    Extracting the wealth is neither simple or sensible.

    --
    wot no sig
  3. Might as well try this too by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    It's obviously a PR stunt, but really that might be what they need.

    It's not clear what the US goal is in Afghanistan, and how to get there. But the possibility of mineral wealth can be a useful fact in affecting the calculus of other countries in how they deal with the conflict. The possibility of lots of lithium can be very important to the Chinese, and having their backing in making Afghanistan stable would be very welcome. It's going to be a corrupt hellhole no matter what the US does, but if enough other countries want it to be a stable, mineral-producing, corrupt hellhole then maybe it will be.

    --
    The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    1. Re:Might as well try this too by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Scenic Afghanistan: The Nigeria of the Middle East"...

  4. Wealth won't help by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Poor religious nutballs will just become rich religious nutballs. And if anyone thinks that the Afghan mainstream aren't a bunch of religious nutballs, go rent a documentary called Afghan Star (about the Afghan equivalent of "American Idol") and watch what happens when a female contestant dares to dance on stage.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Wealth won't help by nyctopterus · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is a problem both the left and the right don't seem to be able to face. The majority of people in a lot of middle eastern counties support a kind of religious tyranny whether they are wealthy or not. Not all people, by any means, but a majority. Bring democracy and wealth to these places without liberalism is not going to get the results we want. In fact it's going to bring disaster, by giving radical religious tyranny democratic legitimacy and the wealth to throw their weight around.

      The liberal part of rich liberal democracies is the most important ingredient. Democracy is more of a safety valve, the riches a by-product (and luck, of course).

    2. Re:Wealth won't help by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There is a long-standing belief in the west that you can fight religious intolerance and hatred with prosperity and education (i.e. "These people are only religious fanatics because they're poor and desperate, or because they're just ignorant and in need of education." But the hard truth is that this is just not the case. You can give a fanatic wealth and education, and that won't change them a bit. If you don't believe it, read the bio of the most infamous one of all.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:Wealth won't help by trytoguess · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It doesn't do much for the current generation, but education does slowly secularize the subsequent generations. How do you think the U.S went from having pockets of people who think singing is a sin to... well something considerably more tolerant at least.

    4. Re:Wealth won't help by Dragonslicer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think the idea is that giving one poor religious fanatic a lot of money will suddenly make them not fanatic. The idea is supposed to be that if you get enough wealth into the society as a whole (i.e. not concentrated in a small, elite class), the standard of living rises enough that the people value their own lives over the chance to kill foreigners. We saw this happening in Iran's last election, when the growing merchant class wanted a government that was more likely to leave them alone than execute them or provoke a dozen other countries into attacking them. Obviously this doesn't hold true for every individual, but it is true for a majority of typical people.

  5. What are THOSE AFGHANS... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    What are THOSE AFGHANS doing sitting on OUR MINERALS?

  6. Annoucements are PR by eightball · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That much is true. However accounting requires discovery, then investigation.

    If the US government had announced three years ago a large estimate of mineral wealth based on the fact that some soldiers noticed a lot of ore lying around, would we be saying "at least they are not trying to make a big deal out of 3 year old news!"?

    My impression is politically, POTUS would rather be saying "so Afghanistan, you got the check? I'm outta here" as opposed to "great another set of targets to defend!".

  7. Oh so ridiculous by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What a ridiculous story.

    Nobody is going to invest the needed billions of dollars in a country with no real government, no laws, no protection for private property, and every expectation of being taken over by the Taliban as soon as the US army leaves.

    It would take billions in up-front investment, as Afghanistan does not have any of the needed things: water, power, roads, engineers, chemical plants, railroads, ports, diging machines, huge trucks, smelters, coal, oil, and gas. Billions, and at least ten years to build the infrastructure before a pound of ore comes out of there.

    And minerals only get extracted if the cost is less there than from the developed sources. That's unlikely, due to the needed up-front investment. And one of the alleged largest supplies, Lithium, is already being mined very, very cheaply in South America, where there are huge easily-accessed deposits.

  8. Oil found off Vietnam by SlappyBastard · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That was the announcement in 1974 courtesy of the Pentagon. Need we explore this further?

    --
    I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
  9. It's a bit overdue, by Minwee · · Score: 3, Funny

    But it looks like they finally found Whopping Mineral Deposits in Afghanistan.

    Time to go after those WMDs, folks.

  10. Re:We're forgetting someone by TDyl · · Score: 3, Informative

    "The Taliban were legitimate bad guys"

    These are the same "Taliban" that the US funded for decades and for whom they provided training and other non-munition resources. The history of the US is one of hypocrisy and so many double standards that I wonder if you are on no one elses side other than your own perverted sense of morality and ethics.

    --
    Todd: I hope it proves as delicious as the farmers that grew them
  11. You know what would pave the way? by jeffmeden · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How about turning back the clock to 1978 and stopping Afghanistan from winding up in the middle of the US/Soviet pissing contest? Don't get me wrong, I fully think the Soviets are to blame for spoiling a hundred years of hard work by the Afghanis. But, it's all too easy to wonder what the world would have been like if the "communist threat" could have stayed inside Russia's borders, through decisive action instead of slow, "cold" influences on the region. Heck, in hindsight they may have been better off just becoming a part of the Soviet Union; we see a lot less terrorism and unrest out of the former Soviet states than this one that "won" against them. It's hard to argue that Afghanistan of today is in any better shape than the Soviet Union was at any point in it's past; if they had started rebuilding in 1991 instead of 20?? who knows how close they could be to a functioning country again.

    For a look into what Afghanistan was like (and in all likelihood would still be like without direct foreign intervention) see this story: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127914602

  12. Re:Several years by radtea · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What's up with that?

    What's up is that the people who brought you Iraqi WMDs are lying again.

    The numbers are fictitious and "Stephen Peters, the head of the USGS’s Afghanistan Minerals Project, said that he was unaware of USGS involvement in any new surveying for minerals in Afghanistan in the past two years. 'We are not aware of any discoveries of lithium,' he said."

    So the Pentagon has basically gathered up a bunch of old data, done some overflight surveys with no ground truth, and made up numbers. Anyone who knows anything about geology knows what a tricky business mineral exploration is, even without deliberate fraud, and yet the American media reacted with breathless excitment rather than honest and fully justified scepticism to this propaganda.

    What's up with that?

    --
    Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  13. Even if it is true... by TheRedDuke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why bother spending all that money on infratstructure to extract those resources when you can just continue to profit from poppies and opiate production? God knows there will never cease to be a demand for that.

  14. Even if it were simple or sensible... by Benfea · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...it still doesn't mean diddly to the average Afghan. They just have to look at Africa to know that none of them will see any benefit from this. To the average Joe on the street, all this means is that the local street thugs who make their lives miserable will have better weapons.

  15. not that much money by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1T isn't that much money to a nation. People talk like it is going to make Afganistan rich. Lets put it in prospective: Canada ~34M people 1.3T per annum GDP. Afganistan 28M people. So all the mineral wealth of Afganistan would enable roughly the per capita GDP of Canada for one year. But of course it will take a couple generations to mine all those resources. This only takes them from poor to slightly less poor.

  16. Re:We're forgetting someone by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The U.S.'s mistake doesn't excuse what the Taliban did, or change the fact that they were legitimate bad guys--of epic proportion.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  17. *sigh* Here's how it works by Anarchitektur · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It continues to amaze me how naive people are about how the world works, so I'm going to go ahead and break it down. This is a summary of what happens to resources in third world countries:

    Because they do not possess the resources, infrastructure, or expertise to mine these minerals, they will have to contract a foreign (probably US) company to do so. To finance the operation, Afghanistan will have to take out a loan from the IMF/World Bank. The corporation(s) doing the mining will reap most of the profits, with a small percentage going to key figures in the Afghan government. The only jobs this will create for the Afghan citizens is menial labor, doing the actual mining. The resources, when gone, will only have benefited the mining/engineering firm(s) involved and the people in power in Afghanistan. Afghanistan will never be able to pay off its loan to the IMF, driving it deeper into poverty, which will, in turn, drive even more locals into the opium trade.

  18. Re:Several years by spun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Then why not recognize when they meet that standard by documenting and mapping Russian preliminary findings and PUBLISHING the information and providing it to the Afghans?

    Why the sinister suggestions of evil intent?

    Because congress just turned down a military request for more funds for the first time in decades. This report has been ready for ages, the military has been saving it for just such an occasion. The idea being, every representative will be thinking, who gets the contracts to develop? Someone from my state, or another state? The military gets a big say in this: this company can perform work in a war zone, this one isn't capable, and so on. So, it isn't so much a sinister suggestion of evil intent as glaring example of realpolitik in action.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton