Digging Deeper: 10 reasons to consider Afghanistan’s gold mine just another hole in the mud

With the discovery last week of immense, ridiculously lucrative mineral deposits in Afghanistan, everyone seems to be elbowing their way into line to sing the praises of Afghanistan's bright, gold leaf- and lithium-encrusted future. Few, though, seem to be willing to look to the past for its lessons. And (though it's starting to become a recurring theme…) those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

The prospects sure are promising, if you look at the press releases and sound-bites. (But then, does anyone ever answer with a shrug and "Meh" when asked about something big like this?) Chief among the untapped varieties of paydirt are iron, copper, cobalt, lithium and the root of all evil, gold. At current market value, the resources are appraised at around $1 trillion. The promise of wealth has already caught the attention of foreign investors and mining interests, spurring talk of desperately-needed job creation for a country with an estimated 35% unemployment rate. The real figure is almost certainly much higher.

One Pentagon writer referred to the potential of Afghanistan to become the "Saudi Arabia of lithium." An adviser to the Afghan minister of mines: "This will become the backbone of the Afghan economy." General David Petraeus is perhaps the most cautious, as we've come to expect from him, saying, "There is stunning potential here… There are a lot of ifs, of course, but I think potentially it is hugely significant."

Unfortunately, no one seems to be talking to historians specializing in Latin America or Africa. Any of them could warn right off the bat that, potentially, it is also Bad News. How could this turn out poorly for the Afghan people? O, let me count the ways.

1. Why now? According to the Times' own piece, information on untapped riches has been lying around since the end of the Soviet occupation. US surveys were made years ago, and have been collecting dust ever since. As Jean McKenzie of GlobalPost points out, this is hardly news. Nothing has changed. And yet, all of a sudden, everyone's lining up to talk to the press. General Petraeus is weighing in. Internal memos from the Pentagon—not exactly known for sharing or playing nice with journalists—are made available. Afghan bureaucrats are getting chatty.
   

   One thing did change in the Afghan situation: Public support for the war. Americans, and the constituents of politicians all across NATO, are getting tired of an unwinnable, costly conflict. There's nothing like avarice to motivate a people to war.
   

2. Job creation in one of the most dangerous occupations on the planet. Yes, there will be jobs. There will also be injury, death, and disability rates that are sky high. Make no mistake: Mining is a hazardous industry. Even China, economic powerhouse that it is, still suffers frequent tragedies, as does the United States. It's true that some kinds of mining are inherently safer than others, yes. It should also be noted that even when mine owners are taking all possible precautions and there is a government in place that will make mines hew to a strict standard of safety, it's still a crap shoot. In the past, foreign mining interests haven't shown themselves to lose too much sleep over the job conditions of native mine workers, and the Afghan government has neither the inclination nor the capacity to crack down on lax safety codes. [Note: As if to make my point for me, the coal mine in Amagá suffered an explosion in the process of writing this. Nine bodies have already been recovered. More than 60 miners are still trapped.]
   

   And besides: Mining is a risky proposition even a country is not engaged in a brutal, 10-year civil war, which brings me to my next point…
   

3. Mines make tempting targets. Perhaps no one cared to look out their window, but there's a war on, and in the midst of a civil war, mines are high-value targets. One need only look at Bolivia's war for independence and subsequent civil wars to see how warfare can completely decimate the industry. It's a story as old as gunpowder and Guy Fawkes: What may take thousands of hours of labor on the part of hundreds of workers to build can be torn apart in seconds by one individual with a bomb and a grudge. Even if the opposition doesn't care to destroy the mine, it's an important asset to hold. Just like the poppy fields and trafficking routes, they're crucial elements to control—whether to use it to fill your own coffers or to ensure that the other team won't use it to fill theirs.
   

   Of course, certain international bodies might levy sanctions against anyone doing business with one side or the other, but such a decree is only as powerful as the repressive power of the State that enforces it. In other words, in Afghanistan, it's only as good as the paper it's written on.
   

4. "Saudi Arabia of Lithium" isn't exactly a good thing. Afghanistan's deposits of that mineral, in such huge demand, will put it just behind, or even on par with, Bolivia. That's a good thing, of course. One need only look at the Andean nation's long history of prosperity, political stability, and equitable distribution of wealth to see what promise mineral wealth can hold. [Note: For those unfamiliar with Andean history, Bolivia has a long history of brutal, rapacious exploitation of its vast mineral wealth by foreign powers. It ranks as the world leader in changes of government. Over half percent of its population is below the poverty line. And its GDP in 2009 was $17 billion—only $5 billion greater than Afghanistan. All this, in spite of the "richness" of its Lithium deposits.]
   

   There's another, greater question here, too: Really, who wants to be Saudi Arabia? Sure, if you're one of the .0002% of the population related to the House of Saud, it's fabulous. On the other hand, if you're a member of the general populace, it's led to crushing poverty, rampant corruption, and a brutally repressive government whose record of human rights violations would merit a US-led invasion if it thought could get away with it.
   

5. Monocultures don't work. An economy dependent on one or two products—whether coffee, sugar, oil, tin, or uranium—is a highly unstable economy, as has been so aptly demonstrated by the recent world financial mess. Monocultures are the world market equivalent of the chubby kid on the see-saw: As long as there's an equally big-boned playmate named Demand on the other side, everything's fun and games. As soon as demand goes on a diet, or finds a new BFF, suddenly fun-time's over and there's a fat kid rolling on the ground, bawling and unable to get back on his feet. An economy has to develop and devote funds to sectors other than the cashcow to take up the slack in rough patches.
   
6. Afghanistan is a newcomer to foreign investment. A dirt-poor Third World nation with money is kind of like a mule with a spinning wheel: No one knows how he got it, but darned if he knows how to use it. Unfortunately, the world is full of Lyle Lanleys just dying to sell the country stuff it doesn't need at prices it can't or shouldn't pay. Instead of a gradual introduction to foreign investment, Afghanistan is being plunged into it with no experience and no structures in place to regulate or control its influence. In his book Making Globalization Work, winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics Joseph Stiglitz examines East Asian economies that underwent extremely rapid growth, and the traits and policies that allowed some to weather the currency crises of the 90s. The chief difference between weatherers and the weather-nots was strict regulation of foreign capital. Afghanistan has no regulation infrastructure and nothing in place to develop other sectors, both in the economy and in the society at large, ensuring that mining interests and those who cater to them will make off like bandits, leaving their countrymen and future generations to foot the bill.
   
   

   
   For sale to developing Central Asian country: One monorail. Slightly used. Asking for all subsoil rights in Kandahar province OBO.
   

   
   

7. Whose interests are being served? The Pentagon is acting to set up meetings with mining companies and calling in experts. If I'm not mistaken, the Pentagon is the HQ of the militant wing of the United States government—a nation that, over the course of two centuries, has proven wholly unscrupulous when it comes to filling its coffers and those of American business interests. The Pentagon certainly has a horse in this race, calling into question it impartiality and objectivity. Being filled with individuals who are very, very good at following orders, I worry the Pentagon will dutifully sell Afghanistan all the shovels it needs to dig its own fiscal grave (if you'll pardon the appropriately-mixed metaphors).
   
8. Resource exploitation begets other forms of exploitation. There are no ifs, ands, or buts—mining is an inherently inequitable endeavour. There's a reason that resource-poor nations have the greatest degree of social equality, political stability, and equitable distribution of wealth. The world over, mining is a zero-sum game; someone has to lose, be it in Kabul, Cochabamba or Canada.
   

   The losers, though, are never the mining companies. They are those who live with the crud seeping into the groundwater or coating their lungs. Those in debt to the company store. Those who are in a race to the bottom, because someone else is always waiting to take their place in the tunnels or at the rock face. Those who see their children born with defects that arrived the same day as the mines themselves. The future generations who will be paying a national debt they never incurred while voting for the corrupt progeny of the same politicians that opened fiscal sinkholes.
   

   Might it be possible to create an environmentally- and socially-responsible mining industry in Afghanistan? Of course. Will it happen? Of course not. Afghanistan's current government and governing class lacks the bureaucracy and the backbone to keep rapacious mining interests in check.
   

9. The country doesn't need to be another proxy. Right now, the US and, to a lesser extent, NATO, are calling the shots in Afghanistan. But China wants to get involved, at least in the commercial sector. As always, disentangling the squabbles of a country's merchant class from the political machinery is nearly impossible. Even though the battlefields are in the boardrooms, business can be just as cutthroat as any shooting war—especially for the denizens who live where the conflict is played out. The last thing Afghanistan needs is to be a proxy for another tiff between superpowers in which it has no stake.
   
10. Where is the representation of Islamic nations?
    Just as with the butting of heads between the US and China, this whole mess is only tangentially an economic issue. Due to the "new" finds, Afghanistan is the latest stage for the debate over neocolonialism, taking the spotlight in a geopolitical struggle over sovereignty and cultural hegemony. It is not only fair but critical that Islamic nations weigh in, or even take the lead, in matters of Afghanistan's future. Countries like Turkey, Egypt, or Jordan provide role models for responsible investment while maintaining Islamic cultural identity. Afghanistan can either become a battleground between the Global North and Global South, or it can become a bridge. The US and NATO have the opportunity to show the world that they're not playing the oldest game; for their sake and that of millions of Afghan citizens, they need to show they're serious and not just gambling with others' lives and livelihoods.