swimming freestyle

About those vast mineral reserves...

It turns out the reserves are fairly common knowledge.  The Soviets knew about the reserves in 1985 and, in 2007, the Bush Administration discovered a whole new reason for committing U.S. forces to Afghanistan.

From Marc Ambinder:

A former senior State Department official said that regular discussions between the U.S. and the Karzai government over how to best exploit the resources for potential future use were ongoing when he was privy to those discussions around 2006.

By 2009, the government had already begun to solicit bids for various mining opportunities. Jonathan Landay of McClatchy was on to the geopolitical importance of Afghanistan's mineral reserves in 2009, writing that China's thirst for coal might be the key to regional stabilization. 

Already, there are accusations that the REAL reason the US is in Afghanistan is because WE want to exploit those mines. That's a passable but facile interpretation of what's going on here.

Ambinder also wonders whether the sudden appearance of the story today might not be a way to convince increasingly skeptical Americans that, despite plenty of bad news coming from the Pentagon, Afghanistan is something the U.S. can't give up on.  

Matt Yglesias has a good post on Bolivia's failure to capitalize on it's lithium reserves and some potential issues facing a mineral rich Afghanistan. 

On the one hand you have a “foreigners come in to exploit resources in partnership with corrupt local officials” model and on the other hand you have the “socialist president scares off foreign investors so you can’t run the mines” model. Neither quite gets you what you’re looking for. Meanwhile, 80 percent of Afghans are working in the agricultural sector and there’s a risk that an influx of foreign dollars to invest in mining operations could lead to currency appreciation that makes agricultural exports uncompetitive. Of course if funds from mining operations are invested in ways that improve the productivity of Afghan farmers (better roads? irrigation?) then you’ve got a win-win. But if not, you’ve got a bonanza for whoever captures the revenue stream (corrupt officials, most likely) that could actually make most people worse off.

Vast mineral deposits discovered in Afghanistan

This will definitely change things for Afghanistan.  U.S. military personnel and geologists have discovered nearly a trillion dollars in untapped mineral reserves in a country that had previously depended on opium poppies as it's most valuable export.

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. (Link)

Of course, everyone is going to want a piece of this.  From the Karzai government (just imagine the level of graft and corruption now possible!) to the Taliban to the U.S. to China. 

With friends like Karzai, the U.S. hardly needs an enemy

Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai has been an unreliable ally for the last several years.  Just a couple months ago, Karzai threatened that he might align himself with the Taliban.

There have been rumors for nearly a year that Karzai's government was negotiating with the Taliban, ostensibly to broker a peace deal that guarantees the Taliban a limited role in governing in exchange for ending their insurgent activities.  According to this NY Times article, Mr. Karzai may have another motivation for negotiating with the Taliban.

People close to (Karzai) say he began to lose confidence in the Americans last summer, after national elections in which independent monitors determined that nearly one million ballots had been stolen on Mr. Karzai’s behalf. The rift worsened in December, when President Obama announced that he intended to begin reducing the number of American troops by the summer of 2011.

“Karzai told me that he can’t trust the Americans to fix the situation here,” said a Western diplomat in Kabul, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “He believes they stole his legitimacy during the elections last year. And then they said publicly that they were going to leave.”

“(Karzai) doesn’t think the Americans can afford to stay,” General Hilal said.

By most accounts, Karzai is an incompetent and corrupt president and disloyal to both Afghan and U.S. interests.  But he may have a point here.  Gen. McChrystal has already begun walking back the idea that the U.S. has a feasible exit plan.  American public opinion overwhelmingly opposes U.S. efforts in Afghanistan.  Add the recession and mounting U.S. debt, the recent news the Iraq/Afghanistan wars price tag just passed one trillion dollars and U.S. deaths in Afghanistan just passed the 1,000 mark and it's easy to see a consensus finally develop that this whole U.S. adventure in Afghanistan is unwinable, unending and ill conceived. 

Sen. Schumer not doing Israel any favors

Now that the cat's officially out of the bag, even hard core Israel supporters can do away with the pretense that Israel's embargo of Gaza is about protecting Israel and, instead, now admit it's all about punishing Gaza's citizens.

Via Think Progress comes video of Sen. Charles Schumer speaking of Gaza to a meeting of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America.

He told the audience that the “Palestinian people still don’t believe in the Jewish state, in a two-state solution,” and also that “they don’t believe in the Torah, in David.” He went on to say “you have to force them to say Israel is here to stay.

...to me, since the Palestinians in Gaza elected Hamas, while certainly there should be humanitarian aid and people not starving to death, to strangle them economically until they see that’s not the way to go, makes sense."

I'm not pro-Hamas.  Nor am I anti-Israel.  But enablers like Sen. Schumer aren't doing Israel any favors here.  Instead of quietly counseling Israel that it's draconian embargo of Gaza will likely turn most of the world into harsh critics, Schumer enthusiastically endorses a policy that stops just short of starving a population, of which nearly half is under 14 years of age, because Gazans had the audacity to stage free elections (with U.S. encouragement) and elect Hamas.

And as Matt Yglesias notes, the current government of Israel, just like Hamas, is also opposed to a two state solution and continues to openly antagonize Palestinians with the expansion of settlements.  

The notion that a doctrine can be imposed on the unwilling by force and brutality is old school fundamentalism, whether the oppressor is Christian, Muslim or Jew.  I find it hard to believe Sen. Schumer would be as tolerant if the Shites ruling Iraq decided to wall in Sunnis and allow them "humanitarian aid" while assuring the world the Sunnis wouldn't be allowed to "starve to death".

Gaza embargo isn't about Israel's security

There goes whatever pretense was left that the Gaza embargo was about defending Israel.  Following the publication last week of details of what's banned from entering Israel (no fishing equipment?  no fabric for clothing?) comes this McClatchy article on Israeli documentation of the true intent of the Gaza embargo: economic warfare.

...in response to a lawsuit by Gisha, an Israeli human rights group, the Israeli government explained the blockade as an exercise of the right of economic warfare.

"A country has the right to decide that it chooses not to engage in economic relations or to give economic assistance to the other party to the conflict, or that it wishes to operate using 'economic warfare,'" the government said.

Sari Bashi, the director of Gisha, said the documents prove that Israel isn't imposing its blockade for its stated reasons, but rather as collective punishment for the Palestinian population of Gaza.

Embargoes are usually intended to influence the powerful to change behavior - banking restrictions, freezing assets, restricting technology trading, etc.  And, the fact is, sanctions and embargoes have proven very rarely effective at producing the desired effect.

Israel's sanctions against Gaza, on the other hand, are clearly designed to induce suffering for the entire population and assure complete dependence on Israel.  Even if one were to somehow ignore the (im)moral implications of this approach, the sanctions against the Gazans cast the Israelis as brutish and genocidal.  

President Obama, following a meeting yesterday with Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, called the Gaza embargo "unsustainable".  Indeed.  Egypt has already succumbed to predominantly Arab pressures and partially opened their border to Gaza.  Israel has reportedly loosened the embargo in the last several days. 

The longest war is going to be even longer

On Monday, the war in Afghanistan became the longest war in the nation's history.  It's been 104 months since U.S. forces entered Afghanistan on October 7, 2001.  And unless there's a radical change in strategy, it looks like U.S. forces are going to be there a whole lot longer.

Yesterday, the top commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, said the failure to win local support has pushed back American efforts.

"I don't intend to hurry it," said Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, visiting Brussels for a meeting of NATO leaders. "It will take a number of months for this to play out. But I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. It's more important we get it right than we get it fast."

"When you go to protect people, the people have to want you to protect them," McChrystal told reporters. "It's a deliberate process. It takes time to convince people." (Link)

This concession comes on the heels of U.S. and Allied forces taking control of Marja in February and letting it slip away when the Afghan government was unable to replace the Taliban in governing the area.  Much of Marja has now reverted back to Taliban control.

Marja was considered a trial run for the strategy of taking back Taliban controlled territory and replacing it with a functioning Afghan infrastructure.  This doesn't bode well for a U.S. exit, any time soon, from Afghanistan.

The impotence of embargoes

Let's see - the U.S. has now had varying degrees of sanctions and embargoes against Iran since 1979.  Another, more severe, round of Iranian sanctions is currently being debated in the UN and expected to be approved, especially with the news that Russia and China are now on board. 

It raises a couple questions.  The first is whether after, 31 ineffective years, it's still reasonable to believe sanctions might change Iran's behavior.  Another is, if 31 years isn't quite enough time, how long do sanctions and embargoes need to be in place?  Finally, is there a point of diminishing returns?  In other words, when does the imposition of sanctions and embargoes just result in a population that's entrenched, more nationalistic, and despises the embargoes supporters?

Unconvinced by the Iran example?  How about North Korea?  What about Cuba? 

And then there's Gaza:

Three years after Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip in a bloody battle with its secular rival, Israel's efforts to undercut the Islamist movement's rule through a policy of isolation have largely failed, according to analysts and residents here.

Hamas's security forces remain strong and in full control, while more extreme Islamist challengers are gaining influence because of an Israeli embargo that has done more to frustrate the population than to weaken Hamas's grip, analysts say. (Link)

I suppose imposing embargoes is some combination of a desperate response and old dogs performing old tricks.   But, there doesn't seem to be much evidence that they actually work.

An American was killed in flotilla raid

One of the victims from the Israeli raid on a flotilla of Gaza bound aid ships was an American.  Furkan Dogan, 19, was born in the U.S. and moved to Turkey with his family as a young boy.

It's reported Dogan had been shot once in the chest and four times, at close range, in the head.

The conflict appears unlikely to fade soon. Israeli officials maintained that they would not relent, despite at least one new ship already setting sail to challenge the sea blockade, another flotilla being planned in London, the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva voting to create a committee of investigation and the United Nations’ secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, saying that Israel’s policy “punishes innocent civilians.”

The dual perceptions of Turkey as a guardian of Palestinian rights and of Israeli soldiers shooting civilians undermined the credibility of some Arab capitals allied with the West, regional foreign policy experts said. Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, which have pressed for a comprehensive peace with Israel, were placed on the defensive as Turkey, Iran, Syria and Qatar have gained credibility through their support of Hamas. (Link)

There's an idiom, the law of unintended consequences, that warns that intervention in complicated systems produces unexpected and undesirable outcomes.  Even the most fervent supporters of Israel's raid on the flotilla must concede "undesirable" outcomes; world condemnation, a fracturing of relations with Turkey, and a realignment of now more hostile Middle Eastern Arab states. 

But it's hard to imagine Israel's leaders find these outcomes "unexpected".  That they adopted and executed their plan knowing full well the implications speaks volumes about those leaders judgment and the seriousness they place on resolving the conflict with Palestinians.

'Toys, some wheelchairs and alot of used clothes'

In the wake of Israel's commando raid on a flotilla of aid ships that intended to break Israel's embargo of Gaza, the United Nations Security Council denounced the raid, called for an independent investigation and called the embargo "not sustainable". 

Egypt, Israel's partner in enforcing the embargo, announced yesterday it's intent to open it's border with Gaza to allow the transfer of humanitarian goods.  Skirmishes along the Gaza/Israel border have flared up; Israeli soldiers killed two Palestinian jihadists who had entered Israel and Israeli jets attacked militants in northern Gaza preparing to fire rockets into Israel.

It seems now likely, given the worldwide condemnation of Israel's response, more flotillas will be launched to challenge the Gaza embargo.  At this point, Israel has taken the position that any attempt to circumvent the embargo will be met with an Israeli counterforce. 

“There will be lessons learned” at the tactical level, one (Israeli) government official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly. “But the policy is the policy. We are talking about another interception at sea.”

Israel began transferring to Gaza the cargo it had unloaded from the six-boat flotilla at a naval base in the Israeli port of Ashdod. The military said it included toys, some wheelchairs and a lot of used clothes. (Link)

The Gaza embargo is all about control

According to The Economist, there's no master list of items that Israel bars from the Gaza strip.  Israel, instead, apparently makes decisions on a case by case basis, but an included graphic (below - click to enlarge) clearly refutes the argument that the embargo is solely to protect Israel.  Rather, it seems completely arbitrary in some cases and, in other cases, a clear and deliberate attempt to deprive Palestinians any opportunities to feed themselves or develop exports Palestinians could leverage to raise their standard of living.

No farm animals but all the feed and hay they want?  No fishing equipment but plenty of frozen fish?  It's about insuring Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are fully dependent on the state of Israel.

(h/t The Daily Dish)