We are never leaving Afghanistan.
It has recently come to light that there are massive deposits of just about every thinkable mineral necessary to support modern technology. Lithium. Iron, Copper, you name it. The value of the resources is nearly 1 trillion dollars (over 83 times the value of the entire Afghan economy).
Risen makes note of two major concerns that come along with this massive discovery: the likely resurgence of warlordism and the doggedness with which the Chinese are going to pursue contracts within the country. The former promises to re-energize the Taliban and fracture the tentative alliances the American military has been working to coordiate for the last 2 years. The latter promises the exploitation of the citizenry and their lands to about the fullest extent possible. Development may allow for some Afghans to find menial jobs, but, as was the case with the USA throughout the 20th century, it is unlikely that foreign multinational corporations are going to improve the well-being of the people. Pollution, land seizures, and exploitative labor practices are all serious potential threats.
Something Risen leaves out in the article is the effect this discovery will have on America. Afghanistan presents another ground for the Sino-American showdown. If you thought we’d been too involved in Afghanistan before, look out. Even if the spiking tribal warfare works itself out and the Afghan government begins running fair elections and the people are fully represented and the government finda a way to use the minerals to promote a general rise in the economy, it is EXTREMELY unlikely that America will leave the country any time in the forseeable future. We’re not going to cede influence in a country that could potentially make us even wealthier.
We are never leaving Afghanistan.
In the wake of COP15, I think it’s important to draw a little attention away from the political ramifications for Obama and the stubbornness of China. The real issue, as Klein frames the argument, is the results for the least developed and most vulnerable countries: namely the countries of Africa.
A global increase in temperature of 2 degrees Celsius equates to a 3-3.5 degree increase for the African continent. Increases that substantial in a country just beginning to take steps toward modernization could prove disastrous. Millions may be displaced. Agricultural industries, already struggling because of mismanagement in places like Kenya and Zimbabwe, may collapse completely.
African leaders adopted a very strong tone before the meeting, but fell flat when it came to standing up in Copenhagen. The walk-out was a bust. The leader of the African climate negotiating group started making concessions as soon as he arrived. They simply did not take a hard enough stand, considering the grave dangers facing them. All of the attention was sucked away from them because of in-fighting amongst the richer countries.
The story of COP15 is one of American hubris, Chinese defiance, and European marginalization. Africa got $100 billion for the next ten years to shut up, and they fucking took it. Not all of them. Some are still trying to speak up like Archbishop Tutu, but there doesn’t seem to be any indication that the content is going to turn around any time soon.
I’m not sure if it was naivety or if Zenawi got bought off, but the 10 billion dollars a year for the next decade looks to me like a slap in the face. The worst part of it is the domestic price the US will pay for it. I’ve already heard some very pointed criticism from the right of Obama for giving the Africans money at all. The frame of the debate has already been set as “Should we help the Africans (through aid) improve their standard of living at a cost to ourselves or not?” This completely misses the point. The whole point of COP15 was to try our damnedest to reverse the problems that may befall us all on climate change. We shouldn’t be setting up a Help Hundreds of Millions of People with Peanuts Fund. We should be fully investing ourselves in making this a non-issue. Making a climate change dichotomy between the African charity drive and the struggle to wrestle China into doing anything we ask destroys any chance at solving the problem.
All week Obama has said he’d rather come home with something crude and nascent than come home with nothing, but for Africa Desmond Tutu puts it best. “It’s better to have no deal than to have a bad deal.” This climate deal is awful. It makes climate change an even hotter button issue, politicizes common sense measures to preserve our future, and sells Africa down the stream.
My prediction: This is not the end of attempts at global cooperation, but it is the last time China or the US will have any shred of credibility in the discussions. Their clash may draw some media attention, but within the decade, Brazil and India and the strongest voices for change in Europe will have to carry much more of the burden to get anything legitimate done. I don’t think we can rely on the two top producers or their victims to lead the charge on anything soon.
I’m a little late to this story. I’ve been away from Politico for about a month now, and it appears that was not the best decision. In Mitt Romney’s latest opinion piece, he lays down some very heavy criticism of President Obama. And, no, we’re not talking about charges of socialism or a secret religious history. Romney sets out a couple of key points that I’ve been frustrated with myself for this second half of Obama’s first year in office.
First, Obama has thrown too much of his attention to politically murky and unnecessary projects of reform. energy policy and health care reform are tremendous issues that effect a lot of people, but they most certainly should not take top priority when our country is both
- occupying the two countries of Iraq and Afghanistan
- in the midst of the greatest financial pitfall since the 30s
I may not agree with Romney’s proposed solutions to these two problems, but I certainly cannot disagree with him about their importance.
Second, Obama’s careful consideration of the situation in Afghanistan before last night’s announcement of troop deployment, appears to me to be incredibly indecisive. I understand that there are pressures from all sides, but military decisions aren’t the kind of thing you can go on a whirlwind town hall tour about. You have to sit down with all of the information at your disposal, and figure out the best use of American resources. Romney would argue the troop deployment has been a long time coming. I personally feel Afghanistan lost all legitimacy when the most recent election was riddled with fraud, clearly revealing the domestic rejection of their own government. But I think we would both agree that taking this long to come to a decision is disheartening.
It may be too early to begin considering the 2012 Republican Party nominee, but I think Mitt Romney may have learned a lesson or two from 2008. He’s shaping up to be a real voice of reason outside of the petty fights in the Capitol.
I felt it apt to do a little reflecting on an article this evening since my brain hasn’t been stirred into anything particularly fresh. Attached to this article is also a 3 minute audio interview with Edward Luce about the significance of Obama’s China visit.
The real point to draw from the article (and the China visit itself) is the nature of the relationship between what are undoubtedly the two most influential powers on the world stage. Obama has now met with Hu Jintao three times, discussing such wide issues as human rights, economic collapse, and energy policy. Though I have not been entirely impressed with the tangible results thus far, it seems great headway is at least being made toward setting the groundwork for cooperation.
China has not yet developed into the world economic player it hopes to become, and America realizes it cannot feasibly tackle all of the world issues alone. Coming into their third meeting with these two things in mind, it seems that each country needs the other, and that the world would be better off with both of them on friendly terms.
But those are broader issues not specifically related to what the talk really seemed to be about. The subject of the meetings with Premier Wen was the same as the subject of the entire ten day Asian tour: trade. Both parties (China and the US) renewed vows to open up trans-Pacific trade. I could not ask for more refreshing words. Do I believe them? That remains to be seen. But in light of the recent tariffs leveed against tires from China and the sporadic but concerning protectionism from most of the countries involved in the London G-20 Summit, I’m pleased to see the two major economies of the world at least paying lip service. It sets a good example.
The conversation continued into conversation about the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). China sang of how it aims to make conducting business 25% cheaper. The US pledged to be remain active.
Beyond APEC were very specific policy changes. Obama waxed poetic about the importance of cracking down on piracy, and China talked of opening markets for energy and pork of all things.
All in all, the meeting sounded out the right tune, and Obama’s willingness to call out China (even in the abstract) over internet security speaks a little to the nature of the relationship. It’s tentative. There’s a lot of common ground and a lot of room for criticism. If both powers can be candid and on the same page, I’m not sure there are many world issues that can’t be attacked with at least modest success.
