ஆப்கனில் லட்சம் கோடி டாலர் மதிப்புள்ள கனிமங்கள், அமெரிக்காவிடமிருந்து இனி விடுதலை இல்லை.

நியூ யோர்க் டைம்ஸ் சொல்வதற்கு முன்னாலேயே ஆப்கானிஸ்தானின் கனிவளங்கள் அறியப்ப்பட்ட விடயமெனவும் அமெரிக்கா தொடர்ந்தும் அங்கு நிலைகொள்வதை ஆதரித்து நியாயப்படுத்தும் நோக்கிலேயே நியூ யோர்க் டைம்ஸ் இத் தகவலை “மீள்கண்டுபிடித்துள்ளது” என்று படித்திருக்கிறேன்.
ஒரு தொடர்பு: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/06/15-0
Article titled “Timing of Leak of Afghan Mineral Wealth Evokes Skepticism” published on Tuesday, June 15, 2010 by Inter Press Service

மூல வளங்கள்,எரிப் பொருள் வளங்கள்,ஆப்கானிஸ்தானில் இருப்பது பற்றி,வட- கிழக்கு,குண்டூஸ் மாகானத்தில்,தஜகிஸ் மற்றும் பஸ்டூன் மக்கள் அதிகம் வசிக்கும் பகுதியில்,நிலைக் கொண்டிருக்கும் ஜெர்மனியின் “சீமென்ஸ் போன்ற நிறுவனங்களின்” வெளியீடுகளில்,பல ஆண்டுகளுக்கு முன்பே வெளியாகியிருந்தன.ஆனால் சீனா,மற்றும் இந்தியாவுடன் அள்ளிக் கொண்டு போகப் போவதில் போட்டியிட முடியவில்லை.சீனா அமெரிக்காவையும்,ஜெர்மனியையும் கழட்டிவிடுவதாக(கிஸ்ஸிங்கர் உள்ளவரை அமெரிக்காவை கழட்டுவது கடினம்) தெரிகிறது.ஆனால்,இந்திய முதலாளிகளும்,”ஐரோப்பிய – அமெரிக்க” முதலாளிகளும் கை கோர்த்துள்ளனர்!.இதையே இலங்கை விவகாரம் தொடர்பாக,2008 கடைசியில்(முள்ளியவய்க்காலுக்கு முன்பு), / Welcome Address
Mr. M.K. Narayanan
Vice President,
Centre for Security Analysis

Mr. Chris Patten, Commissioner for External Relations and Chancellor of Oxford University, Honourable Prof. S.P. Thyagarajan, Vice Chancellor, University of Madras, Prof. S. Karunanidhi, Registrar of Madras University, Prof. Gopalji Malviya, Head of the Department of Defence studies, University of Madras, members of this very distinguished audience, ladies and gentlemen, …MR.M.K.NARAYANAN:Q10. I have three observations. 1. I for one would seriously hope that there is some kind of firm redefining of a consistent and cohesive European Union foreign policy with regard to giving asylum to those who have networks or connections with insurgent or terrorist groups in their homeland. We have Khalistani terrorists and LTTE bigwigs in different countries of the European Union, sitting there for years, developing their own networks there and creating a convenient environment for raising funds and sending it abroad to these groups. And this has been done with the full knowledge of the respective governments of those countries. 2. We had Stephen Cohen here last month. We said that every reason that you are all citing, we don’t agree with the invasion of Iraq at all. Every reason that you have cited with regard to Iraq, is a clumsy case for Pakistan, a clumsy case but Stephen Cohen told us you cannot deal with Pakistan the way we dealt with Iraq, because Pakistan is a nuclear state. Now if you are going to give that as a reason, tell me one good reason why any country would not go in for weaponising. And if this is going to be stated openly, every country is going to attempt to nuclearise its military. 3. I have no more faith in United Nations as it is now than I have in American good intentions when it wants to intervene on humanitarian grounds. The United Nations, if it is going to intervene now, is still extending the white man’s burden, until the Security Council is reformed, because much more than the invasion it was the United Nations which was criminally responsible for the humanitarian tragedy in Iraq. 12 years of sanctions which didn’t affect Saddam Hussein one bit but which destroyed the nation. If this is the track record of the United Nations I have no more faith in United Nations than I have in American good intentions.

CHRIS PATTEN:Let me deal with those points briefly. The first concerns asylum. There is an international covenant on asylum which European countries seek to apply. There is the rule of law in each of our countries. And we have, in my own country for instance, put a number of organizations on black list including the LTTE. We found ourselves again and again challenged in our own courts about these decisions and taken to the European courts about these decisions. Now is this always convenient? Is it always comfortable for our national government? No, it isn’t. Is it the rule of law? Yes, it is. And is it what that distinguishes between a plural open society and an authoritarian society? Yes, it is. Would I prefer to live in an authoritarian society? No, I wouldn’t. And while I may agree with you about a more discriminating attitude to asylum, I certainly wouldn’t agree with you that we should ignore international rules or national laws in doing that. Secondly, it would be as unwise as it would be provocative throughout south Asia for me to get drawn into a debate about India and Pakistan. We are regularly told and I understand this, that India does not want the involvement of the international community. But we hope that the recent confidence building measures by the Prime Minister will help to build the confidence and will help to ensure a peaceful resolution, not least in Jammu and Kashmir. I have absolutely no time for the covert support of terrorism. I have no time, as I said earlier, for the use of terrorist groups by a state for its own purposes. And I can’t be more explicit than that. On the UN’s role in Iraq, I wish that there hadn’t been twelve years of sanctions on Iraq. There were twelve years of sanctions on Iraq, because Saddam Hussein refused to comply with the agreements that he reached after he was expelled from Kuwait. Was it the UN that marched into Kuwait? Was it the UN that involved itself in the most spectacular breach of sovereignty in Kuwait? Should we have allowed Iraq to stay there? Should we have allowed Iraq when it was expelled and to then break the agreements it had reached in order to end the war? Would that have been sensible and wise? Would it have been sensible and wise for us not to have tried through UN inspection to prevent the manufacture the weapons of mass destruction? If there are no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq, I happen to think myself, that is partly because of the UN and UN weapons inspectors. So if you want to live in a world in which there are no attempts to create international rules and to implement those rules, if you want to live in a world in which it’s a question of doggy dog in a Hobbesian state of nature, then good luck, it is not a world I want to inhabit. / — விளக்குகிறது.

AFGHANISTAN RESOURCES:Mineral deposits:

According to the U.S. Geological Survey and the Afghan Ministry of Mines and Industry, Afghanistan may be possessing up to 36 trillion cubic feet (1,000 km3) of natural gas, 3.6 billion barrels (570,000,000 m3) of petroleum and up to 1,325 million barrels (2.107E+8 m3) of natural gas liquids. This could mark the turning point in Afghanistan’s reconstruction efforts. Energy exports could generate the revenue that Afghan officials need to modernize the country’s infrastructure and expand economic opportunities for the beleaguered and fractious population. Other recent reports show that the country has huge amounts of gold, copper, coal, iron ore and other minerals.

In 2010, U.S. Pentagon officials along with American geologists revealed the discovery of nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan.[38] Afghan officials assert that “this will become the backbone of the Afghan economy” and a memo from the Pentagon stated that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium”. Others believe, including Afghan President Hamid Karzai, that the untapped minerals is worth at least $3 trillion. The government of Afghanistan is preparing deals to extract its copper and iron reserves, which will earn billions of dollars in royalties and taxes every year for the next 100 years.