WASHINGTON – America is pushing for new contracts in mineral-richAfghanistan but, while this is not wrong in itself, doing so without takingcertain things into consideration could result in benefiting Talibaninsurgents rather than America.

In an op-ed, Ikram Afzali, the executive director of an Afghan civilsociety organization – Integrity Watch Afghanistan- and Stephen Carter, theAfghan campaign lead of Global Witness, an international civil societyorganization working to prevent conflict and corruption, especially aroundnatural resources, have cautioned against undertaking such ventures withoutaddressing some inherent risks.

Writing for the online The Hill magazine, the authors observed that miningAfghanistan’s huge mineral wealth seems to be on the wish-list of PresidentTrump, who has secured assurances from his Afghan counterpart that Americancompanies will help develop Afghan resources.

Torn by nearly two decades of war, Afghanistan has massive mineralresources and is the second major source of funding the Taliban. Angered bybeing exploited by the “pro-government” strongmen who have competed for themining rights, locals have generally backed takeover of mines by Taliban.This has resulted in people getting a fraction of the revenue that theyshould have out of mining activity.People are also frustrated by the corruption in the Afghan Ministry ofMines which, the report pointed out, lacks the capacity to handle newcontracts.

In the given situation, the authors warned that any efforts to secure newcontracts by Americans run the risk of falling foul, mainly due to thegovernance issue. But, while plans are not exactly clear at this stage,even a desire to develop mining triggers an alarm bell, says the writers.

First of the dangers, as pointed out by the authors, is the possibilitythat contracts for mining will be awarded to American companies cheaply toreturn favor for the US commitment in Afghanistan. This could outrage theAfghans, who have fought fiercely against attempts by imperial forces toconfiscate their resources and may see this as an unfair exploitation oftheir resources.

This perception, the article says, could well fit into the Talibannarrative of the US being an occupying force which is trying to exploittheir resources as the war continues. “However unfair that narrative is, itis not hard to see how it will resonate. America is not here as amercenary, but this would make it one.”

Another risk is the disregard to the law while pursuing such miningcontract. Currently, two copper and gold deals are on the table andparticularly worrying is the fact that a government minister reportedly hasa stake in the companies named as the preferred bidders for two of thecontracts.

This will be a breach of Afghan law if the deal is finalized without thisbeing addressed.

The authors argued in favor of realistic reforms like open bidding,automatic transparency mechanisms, security reforms and giving communitiesa financial stake in legal mining which, the said, the US and the Afghangovernment should be pushing urgently to ensure the commercial success.

“We want Afghan mining to flourish, and don’t take a knee-jerk positionagainst any project. But at an absolute minimum, questions like those weraised need to be convincingly answered first, not just with blandassurances, but with concrete reforms and legal guarantees embedded incontracts and in the mining law,” the authors wrote.

“If America wants to help develop Afghanistan’s resources in a way thatavoids clear dangers, gets the best price possible, and buildsinstitutional foundations for the future, they will be warmly welcomed. Ifthey do otherwise, they risk disaster not just for Afghans but for theirown interests, ironically while making even short-term commercial successless likely.

“America is right to want Afghan mining to grow — but it needs to stoptreating it a as a quick fix, and start building for the long term.