(MINNEAPOLIS) – Could a group of elements, largely unknown to the general public, be a factor in prolonging American involvement in Afghanistan? The answer to that is not clear, but the question deserves a closer look.
Scientific American, a well-respected magazine for science enthusiasts, reported in October of last year, that teams of US geologists had been exploring in Afghanistan – teams transported and protected by heavily armed US soldiers.
.
What were they looking for?
The term “rare earth” refers to a group of seventeen elements with similar chemical properties. They have names difficult for most of us to pronounce such as Thulium, Praseodymium and Neodymium. But while they actually aren’t rare (just rare in concentrations high enough to be economical to extract) their obscure names hide vital uses.
Gadolinium’s high neutron absorption makes it useful in shielding nuclear reactors, small quantities of it improve the properties of some common metals, and it is used in making TV screens. Lanthanum is used in certain types of batteries. Dysprosium is used in computer hard drives and magnets for the type of motors needed for electric vehicles. Other rare earths have key uses in lasers, steel production, PET scan machines, cell phones, solar cells and other high tech applications. And note: rare earths are vital to the development of alternative energy technologies, and so their value is only likely to grow in the years ahead.
The problem is that the United States has virtually no stocks of these elements; they are all imported, and imported from China, source of over 90 percent of the world’s production. And China has export quotas to protect their domestic production, quotas they reduced for 2011. Former Chinese premiere Deng Xiao, quoted by the BBC, made plain the geopolitical stakes: “Arabia has oil, China has rare earth”. Which brings us back to Afghanistan.
.
More reason to enter Afghanistan
In September of last year, the United States Geological Survey, part of the US Department of the Interior, released a report of what those teams of geologists had found. They estimated that one small region of Afghanistan had resources of at least one million metric tones of rare earths – equal to about 30 years of current Chinese exports. Additionally, the report referenced Afghanistan’s significant stocks of gold, silver, copper, and uranium. In short, Afghanistan has the potential to be a powerhouse of mining that could transform its economy.
The release of the USGS report was covered in a wide range of news sources at the time. That rare earths are vital for many technologies including the development of alternative energy is well known. And that the US is dependent for these on a potentially hostile China is no secret either. But does this add up to an explanation of why the US continues military involvement in Afghanistan? That is a harder question to answer.
The claim has certainly been made that this is one reason we’re still there. It seems the US does intend to stay as it is reported that we are constructing upwards of 450 military installations in that country.
.
How Green is Green Technology?
But there is more involved. The mere existence of raw resources in Afghanistan isn’t enough, they have to be extracted and processed, and it will be years before any major industry is in place. And there are stocks being developed in other countries besides Afghanistan.
If a massive investment takes place to secure these resources, what will be the consequences of that? Will the mining operations yield significant revenue to locals, or will the profits be exported? What about environmental impacts? The USGS operation in Afghanistan does reportedly involve Afghan geologists, both in terms of training and in having access to the data. And concessions to develop these resources appear to be open to all comers, including China.
If US policy were influenced by concern to secure a stable supply of resources critical to a green energy economy, few would argue with that, at least in principle. But it hasn’t been part of public discussion; instead, our actions in Afghanistan are presented as a massive response to a limited terror threat. This is yet another example of how public discourse has been impoverished by the reduction of all foreign policy issues to terrorism. How we go about securing our future, just how green is green technology if it involves massive mining operations in 3rd world countries, how can we build partnerships with other countries – these are all issues that should be part of our public conversation.
Recently reports are appearing that large deposits of rare earths are likely to exist at a number of locations in the sea floor of the Pacific Ocean. But can they be economically extracted? Who would have the rights to do so?
Many questions about these vital elements and their role in public policy are no more clear than the mud of the Pacific sea floor.
About Contributor: John Nordin teaches in the Communication Studies department at the University of Minnesota. He holds a Ph.D in Transportation Systems from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and has worked technical fields, been a Lutheran pastor and taught Computer Science in Kenya. He has published in a variety of fields, and leads an annual study abroad program in Greece.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Mint Press’s editorial policy.