Rise to Peace blog

 by Rise to Peace

Unlocking Afghanistan’s Resource Wealth: Three Obstacles for the Mining Sector

Throughout its history, Afghanistan’s most notable advantage has been its geographically strategic location. The country’s proximity to trade routes and markets in the Middle East and throughout South, Central, and East Asia enabled an unparalleled level of connectivity in global commerce. However, decades of instability as a result of constant warfare, have disrupted many of Afghanistan’s naturally endowed advantages. Adding to this tragedy is the unfavorable timing of Afghanistan’s woes, which coincided with the era of globalization.

An alternative narrative of the country’s history in the past 40 years may have heavily favored Afghanistan as a transit hub for moving goods and fulfilling global energy demands between supply-rich states near Afghanistan’s north and eastern borders and booming emerging markets like India and China, both of which consume a considerable amount of commodities.

Yet, Afghanistan’s potential value to the global economy goes beyond just its geography. Among the sectors that could prove to be a catalyst for reconstructing the country’s economy is the nascent mining sector. The involvement of foreign actors in Afghanistan’s conflicts over the past 40 years, beginning with the Soviet Union in the late 1970s throughout the 1980s, began to unveil the extent of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth.

Through geological surveying, and cutting-edge methods such as remote sensing, the Soviets, and later, NATO member-states, have added clarity to the staggering level of wealth residing in Afghanistan’s mines. Valuation attempts have resulted in estimates that range from $1-$3 trillion USD in untapped mineral deposits. In addition to standard precious metals (gold, silver, platinum, etc.), Afghanistan also contains vast reserves of high-quality gemstones, rare earth elements (REEs), and minerals that are critical for industrial inputs, such as copper, iron, lithium, and uranium, among others.

While such commodities offer considerable advantages for economic development, the number of case studies that exhibit the downsides to resource wealth are plentiful, particularly in the developing world. Afghanistan is no exception to this phenomenon, which is most often referred to as the “resource curse”. To ensure proper and equitable development of Afghanistan’s mining sector, a number of obstacles, each of which present their own unique set of challenges, must be resolved to encourage domestic and foreign investment in this sector.

Obstacle #1: Securing Peace & Stability in Resource-Rich Regions.

The need for establishing rule of law and implementing peacebuilding measures is an intuitive requirement for any nation’s economic development, especially when recovering from long bouts of violence. With nearly 46% of Afghan territory in contention, or controlled directly, by the Taliban, ensuring safe passage within resource-rich provinces takes precedence among the sector’s prerequisites.

Although peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban remain fragile, the past two years has featured gradual progress between both parties. In relation to the mining industry, these talks will necessitate bargaining on both sides.

The Taliban is believed to generate nearly $300 million USD in revenues through illegal mining, serving as a lucrative revenue stream for the group. Additional grievances cited by legitimate mining firms include extortion and theft by militants and local warlords. For its part, the government will likely need to cede some level of control over the mining industry, whether that includes awarding formal rights to the group, and/or designing a mechanism for how mining proceeds will be used in Taliban strongholds.

Obstacle #2: Accountability & Transparency from Stakeholders

At present, the Afghan government loses hundreds of millions of dollars as a result of the status quo, which has dampened investor sentiment and discouraged local contractors from expanding mining operations. Assuming security assurances can be guaranteed, the next step would be to enact governance measures that bring much needed reform of existing mining laws and strengthen the oversight capacity of Afghanistan’s Ministry of Mines and Petroleum.

The tendency for corruption and graft to flourish within extractive industries is a recurring theme throughout resource-rich nations. To ensure adequate levels of oversight, the Afghan government will have to take further steps toward formalizing the sector. Doing so would ensure transparency during the auction and bidding process for mineral rights, providing a more leveled playing field for all participants, particularly local small and medium enterprises (SMEs). An emphasis on awarding tenders to SMEs would have the dual advantages of encouraging growth and competition, while minimizing the risks and liabilities associated with larger foreign mining firms.

In addition, greater accountability is required from the government with regard to how (and where) the proceeds from royalties and mining rights are funneled. One oft-cited solution toward this end includes providing an equity stake and royalties for local communities surrounding an active mine, which can be used toward developmental objectives in areas like infrastructure, education, and health.

Obstacle #3: Diversification and Avoiding the “Resource Curse”

In spite of its abundance of mineral wealth, the extractive industry is best understood as a catalyst toward nurturing growth throughout the Afghan economy. With over 70% of the population reliant on the fickle agricultural sector, job growth in mining is but one avenue for absorbing labor from rural communities. As exhibited by countries like South Africa, Nigeria, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, an overreliance on natural resources poses daunting challenges that subject such countries to the whims of the erratic global commodities market.

Thus, revenue generated from mining activity would be best allocated toward upgrading infrastructure and improving the provision of public services. In tandem, these efforts could jumpstart activity in the manufacturing and services sectors, fomenting the conditions for private sector-led growth while expanding government services in rural areas adjacent to the mines.

Resolving these concerns is critical for Afghanistan to harness their bountiful mineral wealth. While rare, successful case studies of resource-rich nations do exist, and an emphasis on transparency, fiscal prudence, and sound economic policy remain the critical components of successful natural resource management.

– Arman Sidhu

 

in Rise to Peace blog 0 comments
 by Arman Sidhu

Eid Ceasefire Offers Cautious Optimism for Peace Process

After enduring a spate of violent attacks carried out by the Taliban over the past two months, Afghanistan received a much needed respite from conflict during the Eid al-Fitr holiday. In recognition of this sacred time, the Taliban announced a 3-day ceasefire, marking the third instance of a temporary truce since 2018.

In its announcement, the Taliban’s leadership commanded its fighters to refrain from launching any offensive operations, but did not rule out the possibility of needing to defend against assaults carried out by government forces. Such sentiments signal that the level of trust between both parties remains shaky, threatening any momentum that has been garnered over the past two years toward a substantive and inclusive peace deal.

Like previous periods of ceasefire, this round proved to be short-lived, with recent attacks attributed to the Taliban following the expiry of the ceasefire. Nevertheless, such measures are considered integral to facilitating the ongoing talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government, who are currently meeting in Kabul while fighting continues unabated.

In spite of the challenging circumstances regarding the conflict, and the sudden emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Afghan peace process has shown resilience through 2020, with promising signs of headway emerging both between, and within, both parties.

For its part, the Afghan government responded to the Taliban’s unilateral declaration with its own peace offering, by promising to accelerate the release process for imprisoned Taliban fighters. The significance of such a move cannot be understated, given that terms for the prisoner release remain a contentious sticking point within the government. As well, the release of Taliban prisoners by the Afghan government has also been utilised as the primary tool for encouraging the Taliban’s initiation of a ceasefire, demonstrating that the Afghan government is willing to take the ‘next steps’ towards intra-Afghan dialogue.

Furthermore, a power-sharing arrangement cinched earlier this month between President Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah will undoubtedly strengthen the government’s legitimacy, while improving its position of leverage during the reconciliation process. Prior to the deal, both Ghani and Abdullah had claimed victory in last year’s presidential election, even after an appeal process had declared Ghani as the victor.

The political feud and rivalry had even gone as far as encouraging Abdullah to form a parallel government, precisely at the time when the Trump administration had signed a conditional peace deal with the Taliban, putting the ball in Kabul’s court to advance the peace process. As a result of the difficulties associated with managing a pandemic and brokering a peace deal, resolving the internal crisis of leadership within the Afghan government has proven advantageous by presenting a united front between the two factions of leadership in their talks with the Taliban.

Having resolved their differences, the terms of the deal designate Abdullah as the government’s lead in talks with the Taliban, leaving administration of state affairs to Ghani. As a conservative politician of mixed heritage with historical ties to the Mujahideen movement, Abdullah has assiduously crafted an image and narrative of his willingness to negotiate with the Taliban.

In recent months, Abdullah has often critiqued Ghani’s approach as impractical, believing that the imposition of demands as a prerequisite to intra-Afghan dialogue has only dissuaded the Taliban’s participation.The Ghani-Abdullah rivalry had also been used to advance the Taliban’s rhetoric, by describing Ghani’s government as fractured and unrepresentative of the Afghan population.

Despite their previous discrepancies, both Afghan leaders can be seen to understand the importance of working together on behalf of taking the peace negotiations with the Taliban further. By agreeing to the ceasefire and to the subsequent release of an additional 2000 Taliban prisoners, the Afghan government has shown its willingness to continue peace talks with the Taliban.

However, it is not only the Afghan authorities who have taken significant steps towards satisfying the Doha Deal, but also the Taliban who have demonstrated their great commitment to the peace talks through the recent initiation of the ceasefire arrangement over the course of the Eid holiday period. Even though violent clashes continued directly after the ceasefire concluded, the hope for finally reaching peace has not entirely vanished, as both parties have clearly indicated a higher degree of willingness to move forward with the Doha Deal and collaborate towards establishing a more stable Afghanistan.

– Arman Sidhu and Anja Apfel

in Rise to Peace blog 0 comments
 by Cameron Hoffman

Terrorism or Testing: Will COVID-19 Reduce Counterterrorism Efforts?

In the wake of the global pandemic, concerns about public health dominate the political sphere, enough so that issues related to public security and defense against terrorist activities no longer appear in the headlines. As government expenditures to divert economic damages and bolster public health measures increase, defense budgets are likely to experience cuts to balance the budget. Such a response makes sense given the scope of stimulus packages and widespread unemployment.

Countries like France, Spain, and the United Kingdom decided to withdraw all troops from Iraq because of the risks posed by COVID-19. This raises the question: Does there remain a need to combat terrorist activity in the same way in a post-quarantine world?

Government officials, researchers, and the Islamic State themselves say yes. Lawmakers and researchers warn that terrorist actors are increasingly threatening global security as they have exploited the pandemic not only to increase their operations, but also their influence in countries with weak governments struggling to confront the virus.

For instance, Gilles de Kerchove, the counterterrorism coordinator for the European Union, in stressing the importance of not detracting from security spending said that, “we must prevent the one crisis from producing another.” Additionally, terrorist activity and attacks in the Middle East and Africa increased in recent months despite the pandemic. ISIL is using the virus’ crippling impact on the West and its online newspaper “Al-Naba” as a method to recruit more fighters to its cause. Further, it is increasing its militant activities in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. Likewise, Boko Haram has used the global focus on the pandemic to launch multiple attacks against government forces in recent months, killing well over a hundred soldiers in Nigeria alone.

To date, neither the United States nor European governments signaled that they plan to leave the Middle East entirely (though as previously mentioned some US partners are leaving Iraq), but the pandemic provides both an excuse and economic incentive to do so. States with large military expenditures like the US will likely be able to continue their operations and smaller countries may not be able to afford these expenses even if they wanted to remain engaged in the region.

US policymakers face a tough decision as the de-facto leader in military engagement in the Middle East. Will the US continue the strategy of deep engagement, utilizing drone strikes as they have in the past, for the purpose of countering Iranian influence and terrorism in the region? Or will the US pursue an “America First” policy that focuses on rebuilding the US economy, which has been President Trump’s major policy objective and source of support? While either outcome could be normally expected, the aftermath of COVID-19 is likely to be anything but normal.

Likely, the US will pursue a sort of middle ground.  The level of activity in the Middle East will decline in some areas (especially helpful to this goal is the US withdrawal from Afghanistan), but remain constant in areas deemed critical security threats.  For example, the US is unlikely to limit funding for countering Iranian aggression, but find other budgets to cut to focus on the economy.

While the retreat of foreign forces from the Middle East, like the US, is unlikely to be met, the future of military engagement in the region will undoubtedly change as world leaders confront the lack of resources to continue their past strategies. Countries with little to lose and smaller levels of commitment will be more incentivized to withdraw and benefit from the continued engagement of the world’s military leaders on some level.

– Cameron Hoffman

in Rise to Peace blog 0 comments
 by Vasileia Kioutsouki

Drone Technology and Its Malicious Use by Terrorists

Emerging technologies may offer recognised benefits, but they pose threats to national security also. A case in point are unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) — one of the most common examples of dual-use technology.

Drone technology refers to a pilotless aircraft whose operation is based on a combination of technologies, such as artificial intelligence and computer vision. Although initially developed for military purposes, drones now receive wider attention and use.

Over the past few years, UAVs have been used by various businesses, including refining companies, online marketplaces, broadcasting services, airlines, construction and logistic companies in addition to governmental and defense organisations. Therefore, from timely delivery at peak time and geographical mapping of inaccessible regions to border control surveillance and supervision of unreachable military bases, drones are proving to be highly beneficial for a broad range of sectors.

However, alongside the aforementioned businesses and governmental organizations, drone technology has had a beneficial effect on terrorism as well. More specifically, newly affordable prices and growth in popularity have attracted the attention of a number of terrorist organisations, including Hezbollah and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

Hezbollah has paved the way for the extensive use of drones by non-state groups. Indeed, the Lebanese militant group is reported to have the longest-standing and most advanced drone program of any non-state actor. It is believed that most of its drone fleet was supplied by Iran which has been developing its drone program since its war with Iraq.

Over the past decade, Hezbollah has made a great deal of progress in the acquisition of highly sophisticated UAVs. They have exploited them to gain useful intelligence and to intercept poorly encrypted Israeli drone feeds. Consequently, the Hezbollah drone program poses a constantly growing threat not only to Israeli security, but also to other non-state combatants.

Similarly, the Islamic State’s use of drones is developed to the extent that it can be described as a ‘drone program’. However, ISIL differs from other terrorist groups in that it has exploited drone technology in a more creative manner. Focusing more on acquiring simple, cost-effective and replaceable devices, they managed to build their own drone fleet.

Another point that sets apart the Islamic State’s drone program is the emphasis put on drone imagery. Rather than just weaponizing drones to conduct an attack, ISIL has strategically used the ability to capture aerial photos that later become central components of its propaganda machine.

In the light of the significant and rising threat posed by the possession and malicious use of drones by non-state actors, several companies were prompted to come up with technologies able to bring them down. These include electronic fences which block drone signals and drones equipped with nets which can capture enemy drones. However, additional measures should be implemented in order to prevent terrorist groups from having access to such technologies.

It is clear that alongside the tremendous benefits, drone technology also involves a direct threat to national security. Although they were first developed for military purposes, the ever-increasing commercial use of drones has also enabled terrorist groups, such as ISIL and Hezbollah, to acquire or even to manufacture their own drone fleets.

in Rise to Peace blog 0 comments
 by Ondrej Palicak

Possible Consequences of the Israeli Unity Government’s Annexation Plan

On May 18, Israel swore in a new unity government in which Benjamin Netanyahu will continue as Prime Minister until he is succeeded by Benny Gantz in 18 months. The power-sharing deal resolved a political deadlock that lasted for more than 500 days.

While the stated goal of the new government is to fight the coronavirus pandemic, the two politicians also agreed to press ahead with a plan to annex parts of the occupied West Bank as early as July 1 — a move that could have serious consequences.

It is likely that the annexation would deal a serious blow to the already stalled peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. In January, President Trump presented his Middle East peace plan which proposed an independent Palestinian state and recognition of Israeli sovereignty over its settlements in the West Bank area. This was perceived by Netanyahu as a green light for annexation of these territories.

The plan was immediately dismissed by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, stating that Jerusalem and Palestinian rights are not for sale. Subsequently, the Palestinian Authority cut all ties, including security, with Israel and the United States.

Palestinian leaders reject the legitimacy of the Israeli move to annex the settlements, which are seen as illegal by most of the international community. Abbas promised to take measures against Israel and the US in response to the annexation, including cancelling all agreements signed with Israel. Therefore, it would be fair to assume that the annexation would further deteriorate Israeli-Palestinian relations, diminishing prospects for peace. In addition, this move could lead to an escalation in violence.

Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and other groups could carry out more attacks in response. In a reaction to the Trump peace plan, Hamas stepped up its rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip and hailed ‘acts of resistance’ throughout the West Bank, including a car-ramming attack in Jerusalem.

Both Hamas and the PIJ called on President Abbas to cut all ties with Israel and for an increase in resistance activities. President Abbas even invited Hamas and PIJ officials to a meeting to discuss possible reaction to the Israeli plan. Azzam al-Ahmed, a senior Fatah official, stated that the Palestinian leadership devised a plan, noting that Israel and the US would bear the full consequences in the aftermath of any moves towards annexation. These developments suggest that a rise in violence could be one of the responses.

Calls for resistance activities could motivate lone actors to carry out attacks. Recently, as the swear in of the unity government neared, an increased number of violent attacks were carried out by Palestinians. On 12 May, an Israeli soldier was killed by a rock thrown from a rooftop and, only a few hours later, a Palestinian tried to stab an Israeli security official at Qalandiya checkpoint. On 14 May, the day when the new government was supposed to be sworn in before Netanyahu asked for a three day postponement, a Palestinian deliberately drove his car into Israeli troops, injuring one. These attacks suggest that because of the annexation, more individuals could resort to violence either in a response to calls from Hamas and others or out of grievance. However, the annexation could also lead to a more organized form of resistance.

The annexation could mobilise enough people to start a third Intifada (popular uprising). In the case of the first Intifada, an Israeli vehicle struck two vans carrying Palestinians, killing four of them. A second Intifada followed Ariel Sharon’s visit of the Temple Mount, together with 1, 000 riot police, and the subsequent killing of six Palestinian demonstrators the following day. Although there were arguably more causes for the two Intifadas, the situation escalated for an extended period and the described events were merely triggers, it might be argued that the annexation would be of such significance, compared to the previous two, that it could start a third uprising. Moreover, Palestinians could be supported or even called upon to do so by the Palestinian authorities as a response to the annexation.

All in all, it seems likely that the new Israeli unity government will face serious consequences and a possible rise in violence if it proceeds with its annexation plan. The peace process would not only arguably experience a major setback, but annexation could have security implications for the region as a whole.

Furthermore, difficulties stemming from the coronavirus pandemic could be significantly aggravated by any potential uprising. The government should thoroughly assess the possible costs and benefits of the annexation and try to keep the peace process alive in order to avoid unnecessary crisis and violence.

Moreover, as the settlements are perceived as illegal by many, the international community should step in and pressure both parties to refrain from actions that might be destabilizing for both Israel and the region. Otherwise, the long-lasting conflict might experience yet another escalation which could in turn affect the already unstable Middle East.

in MENA / Rise to Peace blog 0 comments