Mines, Minerals, and Militias Could Make Afghanistan the New Congo

A US geological survey from 2007 shows that Afghanistan is rich in many minerals, such as lithium, copper, and iron ore. As a matter of fact, it may have one of the world's largest deposits of lithium.

A 2007 press release regarding the geological survey quotes the Afghan ambassador on the richness of the minerals, yet the media is trying to act as if the mineral deposits are a new discovery. Paul Jay of the Real News Network has said that he thinks this helped President Barack Obama's decision to increase the focus on Afghanistan (as well as to get him elected).

The US and allied governments have kept quiet about the discovery of these minerals in order to avoid delegitimizing the Afghan War in the eyes of the misinformed public. Certainly we have every right to assume that Britain and Russia, given their histories with Afghanistan, were also aware of the mineral deposits. Jay went on to speculate that countries with a deep focus on mining, like Canada, must have known about the deposits in Afghanistan. A 2004 World Bank report details mineral wealth in Afghanistan, and it is public knowledge that Afghan President Karzai discussed this matter with Hillary Clinton about a month ago.

The Pentagon once released a memorandum regarding Afghan lithium. The US military leaders could possibly be using this as an excuse to stay in Afghanistan longer than planned. They are also using the minerals as an appeal to Coalition partners to keep their militaries in Afghanistan at a time when many countries are attempting to withdraw.

It is no longer a question of building oil pipelines, it is now also a question of mining Afghanistan. The Pentagon has already started reaching out to individuals and companies that specialize in mining. Such operations take time to set up, and it is possible that foreign armed forces will remain in Afghanistan for years to come despite claims from the bourgeois-liberal establishment.

Afghanistan could possibly be turned into another DR Congo, where paramilitaries hired by companies keep mine workers in check and kill people who go against the interests of the foreign mining companies and their exploitation of the country for access coltan (a composite mineral). Militias, both pro and anti-government, fight with each other over control of mineral-rich areas costing millions of civilian lives.

In 2001, a UN report to the Security Council said, "because of its lucrative nature" war for coltan "has created a `win-win' situation for all belligerents. Adversaries and enemies are at times partners in business, get weapons from the same dealers and use the same intermediaries. Business has superseded security concerns." The UN acknowledged that coltan perpetuated the Congo's civil war, saying that the war "has become mainly about access, control and trade of minerals."

While all of this fighting was happening, mining companies like Barrick Gold Corporation, America Mineral Fields, and OM Group raked in millions upon millions of blood-soaked dollars. Don't be surprised if similar names are mentioned with regard to Afghanistan.

It would be safe to bet that Islamic resistance groups would betray their own causes and principles and become hired guns for mining companies or fight to control the mines and keep the profits for themselves.

Perhaps the future of Afghanistan will also have similarities to Colombia and India as well. In both places, human rights groups are targeted by police and paramilitaries and indigenous populations are forced and scammed off of their traditional lands. Let's not forget the killing of labor union members in Colombia, you can bet that will happen in Afghanistan too.

This, my friends, is the "change" Barack Obama is really bringing the world. For Western foreign policy, however, this is nothing new. This is neo-colonialism, or imperialism is you prefer. Regardless of the name, this kind of exploitation is the true and modern face of the free market and its puppets in the government.