Center for a New American Security

I went to an event last Wednesday morning at the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) that included a panel with James Yeager, former advisor to Afghanistan Ministry of Mines, Graciana del Castillo, a Senior Research Scholar at Columbia University and Scott Worden, Senior Rule of Law Advisor at USIP, and was moderated by Raymond Gilpin, Associate Vice President for Sustainable Economies Centers of Innovation. Strange as it may seem, the event gave me a  feeling of déjà vu.  The event, “High-Value Resource Contracts, Conflict, and Peace in Afghanistan,” didn’t on its face have much in common with an event that I had attended last Monday at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, “China and the Persian Gulf.” Yet I was hearing an eerily similar refrain:  At the Wilson Center last Monday, Senior Research Fellow at the New America Foundation, Afshin Molavi, declared that “China has won the Iraq war,” in the sense that its state-owned petroleum and oil companies have acquired lucrative contracts, and have virtually become one of the dominant players in Iraq. 

Then on Wednesday, Yeunger’s very first statement of the session raised the issue of dealing with bids on Afghan mining tenders from Chinese state-owned corporations.  He argued that the current situation, where Western-owned, private corporations must submit bids against Chinese state-owned companies like MCC (China Metallurgical Group Corporation), is inherently unequal because China’s corporations are aiming only to gain access to commodities, and therefore don’t have to be financially profitable; in fact they can even operate at a loss.  Furthermore, bids from these companies are often accompanied by a financial aid package from the government of China that can be hard to turn down, especially if you’re the government of one of the poorest countries in the world, such as in Afghanistan, where a 20-30 million dollar bribe may be more tempting.  Worden also pointed out that there have been (passive) accusations that China’s mineral companies are free-riding off of the security provided by the U.S. military.

Human rights organizations and security wonks don’t often share similar stakes or interests-at least not explicitly.  But as one of those who identifies with both groups, I think it’s incredibly important to recognize that the U.S. foreign policy and defense communities and human rights NGOs very often have common goals and complementary resources that could help achieve them.  That’s why I was particularly excited to attend Ending the Conflict Minerals Trade, an event hosted Monday by the Center for American Progress Action Fund.  The event spotlighted a rare example of this kind of collaboration, with a panel featuring experts on the conflict minerals trade in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) from  NGOs as well as representatives from the U.S. and Congolese government, including John Prendergast, co-founder of the Enough Action Fund, Robert D. Hormats, Under Secretary of State for Economic, Energy, and Agricultural Affairs, Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA), Ambassador Faida Mitifu of the DRC, and David Sullivan, Enough Policy Manager.

The panelists made clear that the illicit trade of mineral ores from the DRC, such as tin, tantalum (or Coltan) and tungsten, essential components of cell phones, laptops and many other electronics and defense applications, is one of the main drivers of a brutal conflict that has cost more than five million lives since 1998, and a level of gender-based violence that is unprecedented in history.  According to Amnesty International, the illicit extraction and trade of these minerals in the eastern part of the country continues to fund militia groups which in turn commit grave human rights atrocities, including “sexual violence, child and slave labor, and mass displacement.”  A first person account in The Guardian also showed the grinding poverty, terrible working conditions, violence and disease that miners and their families are exposed to as a result of this trade.  Nicholas Kristof recently wrote as well that “blood diamonds” funded conflicts in Sierra Leone and other places, these “blood phones” are now supporting a minerals trade that is fueling “mass slaughter and rape in Congo” (see Steve Jobs’ position on the sourcing of iPhone materials).

Much has been said of last week’s big minerals-in-Afghanistan news. Most critiques of the timing of the news and of the many difficulties in producing these potential reserves were raised in the media and by commentators through last week and this weekend (though if you missed it somehow, just read this from New Security Beat), so I won’t repeat it all.

Instead, I thought it would be fun to apply the concepts that Will (from whom you will not hear this week while he presents a paper in Tokyo) and I laid out in our recently released natural security report to the case of minerals in Afghanistan. In Sustaining Security, we outline two categories of approaches that we think could be useful concepts as security types increasingly consider natural resources issues in their security analysis (while the report focuses much on renewable resources, it works for nonrenewable resources as well if you alter the terminology appropriately for preservation, extraction, etc.). The minerals assessment by the Pentagon is a clear case of this type of work in action – a positive step forward, however the federal government doesn’t really have a solid framework yet for going about asking what does this mean in these circumstances. We described our recommended approaches thusly:

A targeted approach would consider the role that natural [resources play] in specific geographic areas, particularly in current or potential zones of conflict. When taking this approach, analysts should assess how natural resource conservation could ameliorate drivers of conflict and assist the national security community in addressing current or potential instability in the near term…a systemic approach would consider the interconnection of natural resources and their broad strategic consequences. For instance, food and land use, hydrological and forest systems, energy and climate change are all tightly interrelated, and to address any one of them carries implications for the others, as well as for economic development, politics and national security. Analysts taking a systemic approach must look regionally or globally and consider the potential impact of conservation and environmental restoration in bolstering traditional security strategy.

We would label our handling of the current case of vast mineral deposits in Afghanistan an example of the targeted approach to integrating resources into security analysis. The United States did not seek to consider minerals as part of its Afghanistan strategy; it is an opportunity that U.S. and Afghan officials stumbled upon, and an opportunity that policy makers are now targeted. The immediate task should be to game out (hopefully with the help of trusted Afghans) the various ways in which minerals extraction and management may affect stability and internal dynamics in Afghanistan, work with central government and local leaders to choose a preferred development roadmap for these minerals that ensures that profits contribute to the country’s economic growth, and leverage related U.S. government and ISAF efforts toward that path. Though much of the necessary decision making on these minerals will not be in U.S. or ISAF hands, the coalition does have the opportunity to be deliberate in gaming out how these resources could fit into the current strategy; the alternative, which most often happens with natural resources issues, is not ideal: conducting work related to these potential deposits without considering broader U.S. goals, its broader strategy and military operations, or planned timelines. (My impression is that DOD is doing the former, not the later, in some form.)

A systemic approach would mean us, U.S. government folks, you, your drinking buddies, and any interested security types pondering and debating the interconnections among natural resources and the broad strategic environment, including analysis of the important regional and global trends that these newly discovered deposits could affect depending on how Afghanistan’s government manages them. What does an Afghan economy centered on extractive industries mean for its long-term bilateral relationships? How might Afghanistan’s new mineral supplies affect feelings of cooperation or competition between the United States and China, depending on the structure of future contracts? If new-found resource wealth destabilizes Afghanistan, how is the full range of U.S. interests in the region affected? How would this destabilization affect Pakistan and India? Does Afghanistan’s natural security base provide many economic options that could provide more stable development paths? And where is Russia in all of this?

See, doesn’t natural security make for fun parlor games? Though not as much fun as Colbert's assessment in The Word last week, flagged for us by recently departed intern Dan.

Also see these two quality political cartoons on this minerals news: Ed Gamble and Chip Bok (disclaimer: I’m not saying General Petraeus passing out was funny, as it was not, but just that it is a good political cartoon).

And also in the news, police in Basra killed one Iraqi in protests over insufficient electricity supplies. We’ll be keeping an eye out for more on this through the week.

The Week Ahead

Up on the Hill Monday at 2:00pm, Rear Admiral Cullom, et al. will discuss Biofuels: The Future of Aviation? Implications for Climate Change and National Security, sponsored by the Center for National Policy. Wednesday at 9:00am, Resources for the Future is holding an event marking the release of its new report, Toward a New National Energy Policy: Assessing the Options (I am really looking forward to reading this report, and recommend this highly; you can also webstream the event). At 10:00 the House Committee on Science & Technology also holds Deepwater Drilling Technology, Research, and Development. At 4pm Carnegie Endowment for International Peace will have an event on Prospects and Challenges for U.S.–India Technology Cooperation that promises to look at clean energy in that bilateral relationship. Thursday at 9:00am you can hop over to the Wilson Center for Electricity With Chinese Characteristics: The Complexities of Decarbonizing China's Power Sector. Have a great week everyone!

• Forbes covers the role of alternative energy in the U.S. military on its Business in the Beltway blog.
• Iraq has plans to fund its national reconstruction by boosting oil production from 2.1million barrels per day to 10-12 million, reports UPI.
• Longtime CNAS friend Andrew Bacevich weighs in on U.S. security priorities, identifying environmental issues such as the Gulf oil spill as a key concern, in today's Boston Globe.
• The president of the Democratic Republic of the Congo calls for the removal of all U.N. forces, adding accusations that the U.N. wants to seize the country's mineral deposits, reports The National. 
• Check out Politico for some commentary on food issues and stability.

• According to Business Week, Turkmenistan will begin production of a $2billion gas pipeline to the West to provide an alternative to Russian energy.
• Pakistan and India are looking to establish a deal over two large hydroelectric plants in Kashmir, according to the Daily Times.
• Though the reference may be a bit outdated, San Fransisco's Bay News uses Avatar to frame conflict minerals in the Congo.
• China has announced even tighter controls on their strategic rare earth resources, reports China's own People's Daily.
• Reuters reports that Iran may have plans to cut national subsidies on electricity, water and food to Afghan refugees who have moved into Iran. 

The big headline of the national security strategy, to me, is the major role conferred upon natural resources issues, for example reducing oil dependence, addressing climate change and food security. This NSS sets a proper path for ensuring American power in the long term: toward the intersection of natural resources and national security.

It is new to give natural resources challenges such a prominent role in mainstream U.S. strategic planning, as this National Security Strategy does. As such, mapping out new plans and ways of doing business to accommodate issues surrounding energy, climate, food and demographics is likely to be a taller task than for more traditional elements represented in this strategy.

At its heart, this document gets right that addressing energy, climate change, scarcity and environmental concerns can provide useful tools for engagement, for building governance and economic strength in partner nations, and for national security broadly. However, in many cases this will be more complicated than it may seem. Clean energy and climate change-based engagement with Indonesia, for example, must account for that country’s often contradictory goals of both producing and preserving its natural resources. The United States may wish to form cooperative relationships with Afghanistan and Pakistan to address water, energy, food and demographic stresses, but China is swiftly moving to do the same. This strategy’s objectives of managing supply chains and maintaining access to scarce commodities, if not planned carefully, could also lead to minerals policies that run counter to its emphasis on human rights, transparency in trade and rule of law. This, to me, is one of the worrisome phrases within the document:

America – like other nations – is dependent upon overseas markets to sell its exports and maintain access to scarce commodities and resources. Thus, finding overlapping mutual economic interests with other nations and maintaining those economic relationships are key elements of our national security strategy (emphasis mine).

• President Obama has extended a moratorium on offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic for the remainder of the year, according to the Associated Press.
• The Washington Post talks jet fuel for U.S. military installations in Kyrgyzstan and corruption.
• Congress is taking steps to confront the trade of conflict minerals, such as coltan, tin, gold and wolframite, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, reports theHuffington Post. 
• A nod to our friends at Naval Air Station Fort Worth, Texas who have made strides in boosting their energy and water efficiencies, seen in this Star-Telegram article.
• The United States may extend technical assistance programs in energy to the Ukraine, reports UPI.

We intended to post this yesterday, but Dan was off being Marine-like at Quantico, and Will and I were – oddly enough – visiting a rare earths magnet manufacturing site in Pennsylvania. By the time we realized that CNAS was all but vacant, the three of us were all on the road. We’ll try to bombard you with extra natural security news and posts this week to compensate.

I’ll begin our week of pointing to important aspects of the draft National Defense Authorization Act today with Section 835 (Scribd below) which requires DOD to assess any rare earths vulnerabilities it may have.

Rare Earths in NDAA

The first thing that really stood out to me, oddly enough, was the timing of the main reporting requirement. After the NDAA is passed, if this section remains intact, the Secretary of Defense will have 180 days to complete this assessment and report results back to Congress. By comparison, Sec. 313 will require the SecDef to “submit to Congress a testing and certification plan for the operational use of a biofuel that (1) is derived from materials that do not compete with food stocks; and (2) is suitable for use for military purposes as an aviation fuel or in an aviation-fuel blend” within one year. And the Navy and Air Force have already begun testing such fuels. Seems odd that a shorter time span for reporting is reserved for the rare earths task, for which information may be more difficult to find.

• According to the Associated Press, China and Brazil may establish a bond over Chinese assistance exploiting Brazilian Coltan mines.
• USAID's Famine Early Warning System Network released its 2010 April through September outlook for food security in Somalia.
• Check out BBC's audio track discussing the role rare earth metals play in the economy, the environment and technology.
• The New York Times' Green blog discusses the release of the United Nations's Biodiversity Outlook 3, which shows declines across the board.
• The nine Nile states of Africa are likely to come to an agreement over water usage, reports The National.