Afghan Citizens at Risk from Chlorine-Contaminated Drinking Water

By Matthew Nasuti
Kabul Press, June 14, 2010

NATO and USAID are promoting toxic chlorine water treatment systems and donating them to the people of Afghanistan without disclosing the health risks that result from ingesting chlorine. All that seems to matter to both organizations is that chlorine is cheap and easy to distribute. Chlorine, in addition to being a health hazard, is also less effective as a disinfectant than other available technologies. Afghanistan is getting the worst of both worlds: a treatment technology that is less than effective and one which has toxic side effects. It is important to note that although NATO and the U.S. Embassy in Kabul refuse to use chlorine to treat drinking water for their personnel in Afghanistan; toxic chlorine is somehow acceptable for Afghans to drink.

An increasing number of Americans drink bottled water due to the poor quality of their government-supplied chlorinated drinking water. Some wealthy Americans do not even trust American bottled water. They prefer imported water from Fiji, Iceland and the French Alps. The American Government wants to impose their dangerous, second-rate technology onto countries such as Afghanistan. The response of Afghans should be "no thanks."

In a series of 2008 and 2009, press releases from the Zabul Provincial Reconstruction Team, Captain James Arnold ("family physician") and Captain (Dr.) Bill Errico discussed how their sodium hypochlorite (i.e. chlorine bleach) water treatment systems are providing clean drinking water to the people of various districts within Zabul Province in Afghanistan. They claim that their chlorine systems destroy 99.9% of all bacteria. None of these claims are necessarily true and both physicians failed to mention the toxic side effects that result from adding chlorine to drinking water. This is part of a NATO and USAID effort across Afghanistan to promote the use of chlorine, without properly disclosing the negative health impacts associated with this chemical.

Chlorine gas was used by Germany during the First World War because it is a deadly nerve agent and poison. Even in diluted concentrations chlorine is corrosive, toxic and cancer causing.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) lists chlorine as an "acutely hazardous material." See USAID/ANE press release of 2/12/08. Despite that USAID, since 2002, has been promoting and distributing liquid chlorine in Afghanistan under the label "Clorin," without apparently explaining the risks and dangers of this product.

"Ingestion of chlorine dissolved in water will cause corrosive tissue damage of the gastrointestinal tract" New York State Department of Health: "the Facts about Chlorine."

The Chlorine Institute reports that chlorine begins to cause health problems when present at 1 part per million (ppm) as it will form an acid within the eyes and lungs. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s standard lists chlorine as a hazardous at 0.5 ppm.

Chlorine added to water results in free chlorine residue and it generates some equally dangerous byproducts which are both cancer-causing and mutagenic, i.e., can lead to birth defects. (see the Singer 1999, and Wigle 1998, studies). These disinfectant byproducts include:

1. Trihalomethanes - Which can cause liver, kidney and central nervous system problems; 2. Organochlorines - Which are toxic; 3. Bromates - Which can increase one’s risk of cancer; 4. Haloacetic Acid - Which can increase one’s risk of cancer; and 5. Alloxen - Which can attack and damage the pituitary gland.

For further information, see the report by the Government of Canada entitled:

"Long Term Exposure to Disinfection Byproducts in Drinking Water (and Possibly Short Term Exposures in Pregnancies) May Pose a Health Risk to the Population of Newfoundland and Labrador."

See also the study entitled:

"Relationship of Trihalomethane Concentrations in Public Water Supplies to Stillbirth and Birth Weights in Three Water Regions of England" (Feb. 2005)

In addition to being dangerous, chlorine is not the most effective disinfectant. Ozone and ultraviolet light kill more bacteria and viruses than chlorine, and both can also kill protozoans. Finally, chlorine will not degrade pesticides; it will not remove nitrates (fertilizer); it will not remove lead, iron, arsenic, solvents or chemicals; it will not remove dirt, sand, debris, salt or radon. In short, it is not a magic pill for producing clean, potable water.

For chlorine to be effective (and to limit the generation of toxic byproducts), the pH of the source water needs to be kept under 7, the water temperature has to be regulated, the correct chlorine concentration measured and the "inactivation" time sufficient. In summary, the application of chlorine to drinking water is complex. The treated water has to be carefully monitored and repeatedly tested for levels of chlorine byproducts. One cannot simply give bottles of chlorine to people along with a few minutes of instructions. Thus, chlorine is not suitable for use in Afghanistan.

Americans understand the dangers of chlorine and as a result many American communities have begun to switch to a less toxic form of chlorine called Chloramine, but it has its own problems:

- It is not as strong an oxidant/disinfectant as chlorine - It contains 3 parts chlorine to 1 part ammonia so there is an increase risk of nitrates byproducts being produced from the ammonia - It is more expensive than chlorine; and - It also introduces free chlorine residue into the water system

Afghanistan can avoid many of the negative health consequences of American chemicals and technologies by looking to the World Health Organization (WHO) for assistance. The WHO has pioneered alternatives to Western water treatment technologies. These alternatives include natural processes to clean water and natural additives, many of which can be locally obtained. WHO techniques can produce cleaner drinking water in Afghanistan than most Americans drink in the United States and can do so at a relatively low cost.

Contrary to NATO and American claims, producing clean and healthy drinking water is not something that can be solved by supplying "a single technology in a box." No one generic treatment technology will work throughout Afghanistan. Water purification is part science and part art. The reason is there are no two sources of drinking water that are exactly alike. Different areas of the country will have water than contains different sediments, minerals and other contaminants, in differing concentrations. That means that one set of treatment process will not work in all cases. The technologies must be tailored to the specific requirements of the influent water.

The usual practice is to sample the river, stream, lake or groundwater over several days, preferably at different times of the day. Those samples are sent to a laboratory for analysis in order to determine the composition of the particular water source. This will enable an expert to determine what materials have to be removed or in some cases added in order to produce the healthiest drinking water.

In general, to produce "clean" water one must remove:

1. Excess particulates, including sand, soil and debris; 2. Chemicals and pesticides; 3. Excess metals such as iron, lead and arsenic; 4. Nitrates (fertilizer residue) and phosphates (soap residue); 5. Fecal matter, bacteria, cysts, protozoa; 6. Viruses

The solution is to assemble a series of treatment techniques that can be plugged into each other (as needed) in order to add additional layers of treatment. As much as possible these techniques should use local materials. For example, source water in Kabul may require the use of all the techniques (1-8), while cleaner water in Kandahar may require only technologies 1,2, 3 and 6.

WHO technologies produce healthier drinking water

Treating drinking water with toxic chlorine is recognized in the West as unhealthy yet NATO and the U.S. Embassy continue to foster such technology onto the Afghan people. Chlorinated drinking water is sub-lethal. Drinking it will not cause immediate death, but it will increase the rate of illness within the consuming population, ultimately decreasing their life-spans. The World Health Organization (WHO) has determined that there are better and safer methods for purifying drinking water than using chlorine.

Some of the processes endorsed by the WHO were developed by investigators who traveled to remote areas of the world to research local water treatment practices. Those investigators made some interesting discoveries. One investigator came upon a village cistern filled with cloudy water. He watched in puzzlement as a village elder threw a rotting tree branch into the water and then told the WHO investigator to return the next day. He returned and found to his surprise that the water was now clear. This was not magic but basic chemistry. The bark on the rotting tree limb turned out to be a very efficient floc, meaning it acts on suspended solids in the water and precipitates them out, pushing them to the bottom of the cistern. The reason is that the bark releases lignins (humic acid). The acid reacts with the water to create hydrogen peroxide that acts as a "floc." Flocs can reduce the concentrations of suspended solids such as phosphorus, nitrogen, iron, manganese and ammonia, this producing clear water.

The WHO is a success because it listens and learns from local communities. It tries to use local materials and employ local solutions, rather than adopting the attitude that the West knows best.

The WHO has documented that numerous natural substances, in addition to tree bark, which are effective as flocs. They include:

- seaweed - peat - coconut shells - M.oleifera seeds - theythancottai tree seeds - wheat straw - barley straw

The ideal water treatment systems are those that are:

1. simple to manufacture and operate,

2. made from locally available materials; and which will

3. produce clean and healthy water.

The balance of this article discusses a few of the more promising technologies. They include making filters from cotton, sand, wood charcoal and ceramic materials, boiling water, adding air to water, using the sun to distill and disinfect, and using ultraviolet light to disinfect. Finally, one of the easiest techniques is to simply place water into alternating pots for three days. Western engineers make money from the construction of large and expensive, high-technology water treatment facilities. In reality, modest and rudimentary low-technology treatment facilities can produce water of the same or better quality at a fraction of the cost.

The following processes are effective at removing contaminants from drinking water. Each process does not remove every contaminant, so the processes have to be grouped and used together in various configurations depending on how polluted the source water. All of these processes are preferable to Western chlorine-centric systems. These technologies can be used both at the village or town level, and they could be provided to individual households so that each family can independently treat their own water.

1. Filtration:

Filtration is perhaps the oldest water treatment method. The range of filter types and media is extensive. Most treatment plants commence their treatment by running the influent water through one or more metal mesh filter screens to remove leaves, plant material, wood and other debris.

a. Cloth Filters:

Cloth filters were reportedly used in ancient Greece. This is a simple process in which water is poured through a piece of cotton cloth. Cloth filters are called sediment filters because they will remove some of the suspended sediments or solids in the water and will help to purify the water to a degree. The more tightly the cotton is woven, the more effective the filter and the longer it will take the water to seep through the filter. These filters will eventually become saturated with dirt and other materials. In those instances, they either need to be replaced, or washed and returned to use.

b. Wood Charcoal Filters:

The use of various forms of carbon to filter either air or water was known in ancient Egypt. Carbon filters were also used in early gas masks because of their superior ability to absorb toxic organic chemicals. Carbon or wood charcoal (not the petroleum-based charcoal used in the West) has a natural attraction for many pollutants and by running water over or through a bed of charcoal, many contaminants can be removed. They include chlorine, benzene, radon, solvents and possibly some iron and hydrogen sulfide. Charcoal can also remove odors and colors and it can improve the overall taste of the water. A simple carbon filter can be manufactured from charcoal.

Charcoal is usually produced by heating a container of wood, especially pine, and decanting the gases produced. Charcoal can also be made out of coconut husks or nut shells. While specialty forms of carbon, such as "carbon block" and granular activated carbon (GAC) work best and can produce removal efficiencies down to about 0.5 microns, ordinary charcoal can be very effective.

c. Sand Filters:

In 1829, the Chelsea Water Works Company in London began using a process called slow sand filtration to treat drinking water. It was successful in removing 98% of bacteria from Thames River water. Slow sand filtration was later largely abandoned by the West because it required large volumes of sand of various grain types, was labor intensive (as the sand had to be changed periodically), and did not produce the high volume of processed drinking water that was required. Slow sand filtration still has a place in the developing world as it is a very effective treatment technique which has the support of the WHO. It is effective because it is both a sediment filter and a unique biological filter.

d. Lime Filters:

Lime or calcium hydroxide is inexpensive and readily available in most countries. It is a strong alkaline that attacks metals. Used in a filter, it can decrease the total dissolved solids in water, especially carbonates. Lime has a drawback in that the sludge produced has to be properly managed and disposed of due to the fact that lime is naturally corrosive.

e. Red Mud Filters:

Red mud is a byproduct of bauxite mining. It can be effective at removing nitrogen (fertilizer runoff) from water. Nitrates can cause Methemoglobinemia, a potentially fatal disease affecting small children.

f. Ceramic Filters:

Ceramic filters are the latest addition to the filtration world. As the name describes they are rigid filters made of ceramic material. Their benefits are that they can be manufactured in micron and even submicron sizes in order to filter out even the smallest viruses. They can also be cleaned and reused. The WHO standard is a 1 micro filter. This is a good filter for removing most bacteria such as E-Coli and Vibrio Cholera, especially the nasty 0157:H7 and 0139 spiral strains (respectively), which are 1-5 microns in size, but Listeria and Salmonella Typhi rods can be as small as 0.5 microns. Ceramic filters are now being manufactured which can remove all sediments down to 0.22 microns.

2. The Three Pot System:

The WHO recommends the simple three pot system as an emergency treatment process. The idea is to line up three clean pots in a row. They can be made of glass, clay, metal or other materials. The first pot is filled with water and covered. It needs to be kept away from heat and direct sunlight. 24 hours later the water is poured into the second pot taking care not to transfer any of the sediment that has collected at the bottom of the pot. The same process is repeated with the second pot and a day later the third pot. Each day the water will have less contaminants. The water in pot three can be used for drinking water in an emergency. Simply permitting water to stand will, surprisingly, remove a significant percentage of suspended solids and with them a percentage of bacteria and other contaminants. The water becomes cleaner, but it is not advisable to drink such water regularly because it is unlikely that this process alone will be sufficient, except perhaps with some well water. This process can be used successfully in combination with some of the other processes discussed here.

3. Boiling:

Water can be boiled for at least five minutes and preferably up to 20 minutes, which will kill almost all of the bacteria and destroy most chlorine in the water. Again, boiling by itself will not produce clean water, but can do so in combination with some of these other processes.

4. Aeration:

Aeration is simply the process of mixing air in with the water. A hand pump can be used to push air into the water or a pump can be used to operate a water fountain which will expose and mix falling water with the surrounding air. An aeration tank can also be made by stacking several plastic containers on top of each other, creating a gravity fountain. Aeration can remove carbon dioxide, volatile organic compounds, hydrogen sulfide and help precipitate metals such as iron.

5. Solar Distillation:

A solar still uses sunlight to naturally evaporate and separate water from most of its associated pollutants. All this technique requires is about $20 worth of materials, plus sunlight. The theory is that sunlight boils the water and turns it into steam. The steam rises up to the slanted sheet of glass, condenses (cools) on the glass and the resulting water drips down and is collected in a separate container. The water produced is considered distilled, which means that under normal conditions, it consists of hydrogen, oxygen and little else. The distillation process is indiscriminate. It will remove pollutants and contaminants such as lead, iron, arsenic, bacteria and viruses, but it will also remove the minerals that give water its taste and chemical balance. A problem with distillation is that synthetic chemicals which have a lower boiling point than water may wind up being evaporated and condensed along with the distilled water. Distilled water is harmful to drink in the long term because de-mineralized water has an affinity for minerals and may begin to pull them from the body of anyone drinking such water over the long term. Solar distillation is a valuable tool, but the distilled water has to be mixed back in with other mineral water in order to produce healthy drinking water. A general rule for solar stills is that 1 pint of water can be distilled (recovered) per day for every square foot of solar still exposed to significant sunlight over a 12- hour period.

6. Solar Disinfection:

The WHO is promoting a wonderfully simple technology called "solar disinfection." The way it works is that water is placed into a large glass jar with a tight lid. The outside of half of the jar is painted black. The jar is placed on the ground or a roof-top with the black side positioned next to the ground or roof-top. The jar is then exposed to the sun from four to eight hours. The heat and ultraviolet waves in the sunlight are absorbed by the black paint and pushed back into the water, accelerating the thermal effects. This process is germicidal in that it will destroy bacteria, virus, algae, yeast, protozoa, oocysts, including TB and vibrio cholerae.

7. Ultra-Violet Light (UV pulse):

As explained above, ultraviolet light is the primary mechanism that permits solar disinfection to work. Technology widely exists to mechanically create UV light within pipes or water tanks. These UV pulse systems are germicidal (destroy germs) and are effective at destroying bacteria, virus, algae, yeast, protozoa, oocysts, TB, chlorera (vibrio cholerae) and other materials. They are designed to sit within pipes and disinfect the water as it passes over or under them. The drawbacks of UV systems are that they probably cannot be locally manufactured, they require electricity to operate and they do not work well treating cloudy water (i.e., water with significant levels of sediments). Their primary benefits are that they disinfect water better than chlorine, with no side effects or toxic byproducts being produced.

In conclusion, every Afghan citizen has the right to clean, healthy drinking water. In order to achieve that goal, NATO, Western donor countries and organizations have to abandon their efforts to impose their chlorine-centric technologies on Afghanistan. They must instead embrace the lessons learned by the World Health Organization.

Riches: A Conveniently Timed Zombie Story

By Steve Hynd
June 14, 2010

Last night, the New York Times' James Risen "broke" what the mainstream media are insisting is a blockbuster story about Afghanistan's untapped mineral wealth - not just iron and copper but strategically significant minerals like lithium and all told valued at around $1 trillion.

Wow!

Only...not wow. When the NYT published Risen's story to the web last night, I tweeted "What a convenient time to find $1 trillion, eh?" and "Just as McChrystal's in big trouble, liberal thinktanks starting to shift anti-war, Pentagon publicizes $1 trillion Afghan treasure trove," because this is a zombie story, resurrected yet again for political purposes.

Afghanistan's mineral riches were well known to the Soviets in 1985 and a US government Country Study in 2002 went into detail about their knowledge. By 2005 the US Geological Service was being publicly exuberant in its assessment of Afghanistan's mineral resources (PDF). It published other public reports about the "Significant Potential for Undiscovered Resources in Afghanistan" in 2007, one of whichfocussed on non-fuel minerals. In 2008, it was Afghan reserves of oil and gas that was making the news and in 2009, as Reuters was reporting on Afghanistan's vast mineral wealth and McLatchy was noting China's interest, rights to the vast iron deposits were already up for tender.

Blake Hounshell is just as sceptical as I am, writing last night:

the findings on which the story was based are online and have been since 2007, courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey. More information is available on the Afghan mining ministry's website, including a report by the British Geological Survey (and there's more here). You can also take a look at the USGS's documentation of the airborne part of the survey here, including the full set of aerial photographs.

Nowhere have I found that $1 trillion figure mentioned, which Risen suggests was generated by a Pentagon task force seeking to help the Afghan government develop its resources (looking at the chart accompanying the article, though, it appears to be a straightforward tabulation of the total reserve figures for each mineral times current the current market price). According to Risen, that task force has begun prepping the mining ministry to start soliciting bids for mineral rights in the fall.

Don't get me wrong. This could be a great thing for Afghanistan, which certainly deserves a lucky break after the hell it's been through over the last three decades.

But I'm (a) skeptical of that $1 trillion figure; (b) skeptical of the timing of this story, given the bad news cycle, and (c) skeptical that Afghanistan can really figure out a way to develop these resources in a useful way. It's also worth noting, as Risen does, that it will take years to get any of this stuff out of the ground, not to mention enormous capital investment.

Exactly. These reserves are very real but they don't help Afghanistan right now one bit and they're unlikely to really help Afghanistan down the line since the evidence says that corrupt societies that suddenly find themselves in possession of mineral wealth only get more corrupt. So, unless you're willing to encompass the conspiracy theory that the US invaded Afghanistan, at a cost of $1 trillion and rising fast, so that one day some corporations might make a few billions (and some will) we have to ask what was the point of resurrecting this zombie and painting it up so fine for Mardi Gras?

Well, although Risen's lede says the news came from "senior American government officials" it's easy to see which agency wants us reading about massive strategic reserves in Afghanistan right now. The story came from the Pentagon. Risen quotes extensively from Paul A. Brinkley, "deputy undersecretary of defense for business and leader of the Pentagon team that discovered the deposits" and has General Petraeus saying that "There is stunning potential here...I think potentially it is hugely significant."

The timing is significant. In the last week, I've had several liberal think-tankers tell me privately that General McChrystal and the Pentagon's beloved COIN ideology are about to have what Gareth Porter terms a "2006 moment". With a slew of bad news about delays, unsuccessful offensives, unreliable local allies and offensives that cannot be called offensives in the past few weeks, those think-tankers expect President Obama to hold McChrystal, Petraeus and Mullen to their promise, as described by Jonathan Alter recently:

Inside the Oval Office, Obama asked Petraeus, "David, tell me now. I want you to be honest with me. You can do this in 18 months?"

"Sir, I’m confident we can train and hand over to the ANA [Afghan National Army] in that time frame," Petraeus replied.

"Good. No problem," the president said. "If you can’t do the things you say you can in 18 months, then no one is going to suggest we stay, right?"

"Yes, sir, in agreement," Petraeus said.

"Yes, sir," Mullen said.

The president was crisp but informal. "Bob, you have any problems?" he asked Gates, who said he was fine with it.

The president then encapsulated the new policy: in quickly, out quickly, focus on Al Qaeda, and build the Afghan Army. "I’m not asking you to change what you believe, but if you don’t agree with me that we can execute this, say so now," he said. No one said anything.

"Tell me now," Obama repeated.

"Fully support, sir," Mullen said.

"Ditto," Petraeus said.

Obama was trying to turn the tables on the military, to box them in after they had spent most of the year boxing him in. If, after 18 months, the situation in Afghanistan had stabilized as he expected, then troops could begin to come home. If conditions didn’t stabilize enough to begin an orderly withdrawal of U.S. forces (or if they deteriorated further), that would undermine the Pentagon’s belief in the effectiveness of more troops. The commanders couldn’t say they didn’t have enough time to make the escalation work because they had specifically said, under explicit questioning, that they did.

There are careers on the line, not to mention the credibility of the whole counterinsurgency doctrine in which the Pentagon and its supporters have invested so much. As Marc Ambinder writes:

The general perception about the war here and overseas is that the counterinsurgency strategy has failed to prop up Hamid Karzai's government in critical areas, and is destined to ultimately fail. This is not how the war was supposed to be going, according to the theorists and policy planners in the Pentagon's policy shop.

What better way to remind people about the country's potential bright future -- and by people I mean the Chinese, the Russians, the Pakistanis, and the Americans -- than by publicizing or re-publicizing valid (but already public) information about the region's potential wealth?

The Obama administration and the military know that a page-one, throat-clearing New York Times story will get instant worldwide attention. The story is accurate, but the news is not that new; let's think a bit harder about the context.

But I think Michael Cohen is partly wrong about the intended audience for this NYT zombie story. Michael writes:

exactly how clueless are the leakers at DoD? Did they somehow think that this "blockbuster" story would change attitudes about Afghanistan after every day last week there was another article about precisely how bad the mission there is going? ...

There is nothing in this story that changes the fundamental incoherence of the current mission in Afghanistan. There is nothing here that will change the dynamics on the ground in Afghanistan and the reality of a corrupt, illegitimate Afghan government, an adaptable insurgent force and a June 2011 deadline for the commencement of US troop withdrawals.

The only thing this story shows is the desperation of the Pentagon in planting pie-in-the-sky news stories about Afghanistan and trying to salvage the lost cause that is our current mission there.

He is right as far as most of us unwashed peons are concerned. However, guaranteed U.S. access to "strategic reserves" of "strategic minerals", where possession is nine tenths of the game and the resources are just as valuable still in the ground as mined and processed for market, is a heady brew to mostly-hawkish senior policymakers and Very Serious think-tankers, especially if the end of the sentence goes 'and China doesn't get them". Risen's stenography isn't aimed at us, but at them and will be used to add some geopolitical weight to the arguements McChrystal and others are already beginning to make as to why they should be allowed to break their promise to Obama and the U.S. should stay in Afghanistan a few years longer.

Update: Katie Drummond at Danger Room puts it bluntly: "No, The U.S. Didn’t Just 'Discover’ a $1T Afghan Motherlode":

One retired senior U.S official is calling the government’s mineral announcement "pretty silly," Politico is reporting. "When I was living in Kabul in the early 1970’s the [U.S. government], the Russians, the World Bank, the UN and others were all highly focused on the wide range of Afghan mineral deposits. Cheap ways of moving the ore to ocean ports has always been the limiting factor."

At least two American geologists have been advising the Pentagon on Afghanistan’s wealth of mineral resources for years. Bonita Chamberlin, a geologist who spent 25 years working in Afghanistan, "identified 91 minerals, metals and gems at 1,407 potential mining sites," the Los Angeles Times reported in 2001. She even wrote a book, "Gemstones in Afghanistan," on the topic. And Chamberlin worked directly with the Pentagon, after they commissioned her to report on sandstone and limestone caves mere weeks after 9/11.

"I am quite surprised that the military is announcing this as some 'new’ and ’surprising" discovery,’ she told Danger Room in an email. "This is NOT new. Perhaps this also hints at the real reason why we would be so intent on this war…".

And James Joyner at the New Atlanticist has a good roundup of reaction as he warns "Beware the hype".

Update 2: readers will have noticed I originally day-dreamed my way to mentioning the wrong country in my post headline, mentioning Iraq instead of Afghanistan. A friend emails: "Man, I didn't even realize it, I just subconsciously blurred it all together. 'Oh, Iraq, Afghanistan, OK.' Somewhere Karl Rove just got a boner."

Just goes to show how pernicious that bit of framing was. And on that note, Dave earlier noted the similarity between this current story and past tales of massive oil reserves in Anbar that we were told would even out the factional inequalities in Iraq and make that nation a happy-happy-joy-joy land. And we've seen how all that oil out of Anbar has done that. Ummm....

Update 3: Josh Mull agrees with me about the target audience.

This story is aimed at the elites who make the wars. The Pentagon has handed the hawks in Washington a powerful factoid to be used and re-used endlessly in pursuit of their war.

How do we know this? Well, there are some very obvious clues. The article is loaded with crunchy, fact-y bits that appear substantive, but in reality have nothing to do with what’s actually at stake. Does it matter that they have rare-earth minerals and lithium for laptops and so on? No, it doesn’t matter if they struck the mother lode of chocolate ice cream. As Blake Hounsel writes, they don’t even have concrete, much less a sophisticated, multi-billion dollar mining industry capable of extracting, processing, and marketing these minerals to international companies. They want it to look like a lot of information ("Wow, lookit all the minerals!") but not actually answer any real questions ("Wait, can they even get it?").

Think-tankers love this kind of crap. They’d like nothing better than to somehow fit COIN and iPads (like most in the media, they’re commercial shills for both) into the same article. If you like your Macbook and your Prius and that application that makes your telephone fart, well, you’d better support our batshit crazy idea of invading and bombing Afghan into a peaceful democracy. Otherwise the Chinese will steal all of that copper, and they don’t give us anything (except everything).

And the Pentagon has now said that the specific figure is $908 billion. Because when you're working with zombies on such a large scale, a precise figure helps make the idea that it's all just lying around waiting for us (or China) to pick up a bit more believable, you see.

Update 4: I told you the VSPs would buy the narrative behind the story.

"Obama's war just became more important and more complicated at the same time," said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer who helped advise the administration last year when it was rethinking its Afghanistan strategy.

Riedel said that if the U.S. can provide the Afghans security and logistics to build up its mining capacity, Afghanistan's international stock will suddenly become more valuable. But there are a host of complications — competing industries and countries, corruption and war.

"If this was Pennsylvania, it'd turn out one way," he said. "But this is Afghanistan."

In other words, "we gotta stay now, or China wins!"

By Malcom Lagauche
June 14, 2010

Many countries have one or two days a year that indicate a national tragedy. In the U.S., December 7, 1941, the day the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, is labeled a "day of infamy." Almost 60 years later, September 11, 2001 surpassed December 7 as a rallying cry for U.S. solidarity.
Iraq, a country much smaller than the U.S., and never as large a player on the international scene, can claim several days of infamy: January 17, 1991 (the beginning of Desert Storm); February 14, 1991 (the destruction of the Amiryah Bomb Shelter); March 20, 2003 (the start of the U.S. illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq); and April 9, 2003, (U.S. forces enter Baghdad) among others. But, one date that gains little international attention is imbedded in the hearts and minds of most Iraqis: June 26, 1993.

On that date, the U.S. military, under the command of Bill Clinton, ordered 23 Tomahawk guided missiles to demolish the headquarters of the Mukhabarat, the Iraqi intelligence services, in central Baghdad. Twenty of the missiles hit the agency complex, while "only" three missed their targets.

A jubilant Clinton took to the airwaves and proclaimed victory. He was happy that only three missed their mark. One could think he was addressing the public about the score of a sporting event.

Of the three that missed, one destroyed the home of Layla al-Attar, killing her and her husband, and blinding her daughter.

Layla al-Attar was the director of the Iraqi National Art Museum and a leading Arab artist who was revered in Iraq much the same as Norman Rockwell was in the U.S. In addition, she was a spokesperson for international peace, for the inner peace of women, and for resistance against U.S. hegemony. Layla al-Attar symbolized Iraq.

When news of al-Attar’s death broke, Iraq mourned. A special person who transcended political ideology and represented all of humankind had been assassinated.

During the Gulf War, her home was almost totally destroyed by U.S. missiles. Two years later, shortly after the completion of the house’s reconstruction, an "errant" missile finished the job that its cousin had only partially performed in earlier years.

Although never proven, it is quite easy to give credence to the theory that Layla al-Attar was the target of a missile, not merely a casualty of "collateral damage" from a misguided projectile. Every Iraqi believes she was marked, but shortly after her execution, the rest of the world forgot.

Outside the Arab world, Layla al-Attar was on the verge of becoming a top international artist. European art galleries were beginning to highlight her work. In the U.S., however, she was little known. Little international outrage was heard when she was killed.

The reason behind the attack was as bogus as any given during the Bush I years. Clinton stated that information was in-hand that showed Iraqi operatives were behind an aborted assassination attempt on former President George Bush in April 1993 at a ceremony praising him in Kuwait. Clinton added that Saddam Hussein ordered the attempt on Bush’s life. At the last minute, those who were to carry out the attack were apprehended and Clinton had to teach the Iraqis a lesson.

The big lie still persisted. Those arrested were merely drug and alcohol smugglers. In the aftermath of the June 26 missile attack, one-by-one the mythical would-be assassins were released from Kuwaiti jails, but, the U.S. media did not consider this information newsworthy. It was not as exciting as assassination plots and missile attacks.

On November 1, 1993, the New Yorker published an article by Seymour Hersh titled "A Case Not Closed." In it, Hersh went into detail about the entire event and basically showed there was no validity to Clinton’s claim.

Why did Clinton order this attack? At the time, Republicans and pro-war Democrats criticized him for being "weak" on Iraq and other invisible threats against the U.S. Clinton had to earn respect. What better target than Iraq, a defenseless country that was isolated because of U.S. propaganda?

According to Hersh:

Three of the million-dollar missiles missed their targets and landed on nearby homes, killing eight civilians, including Layla al-Attar, one of Iraq’s most gifted artists. The death toll was considered acceptable by the White House. Clinton administration officials acknowledged that they had been "lucky," as one national security aide put it, in that only three of the computer-guided missiles went off course.

Thus, on a Saturday in June, the president and his advisors could not resist proving their toughness in the international arena. If they had truly had full confidence in what they were telling the press and the public about Saddam Hussein’s involvement in a plot to kill George bush, they would have almost certainly ordered a far fiercer response than they did. As it was, confronted with evidence too weak to be conclusive but, in their view, perhaps not weak enough to be dismissed, they chose to fire missiles at night at an intelligence center in the middle of a large populous city.

Over the years, many people have uttered, "Saddam tried to kill Bush’s father," in defense of Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq. In March 2008, the story took another turn as an unlikely organization admitted the plot was a hoax: the Pentagon.

The March 23, 2008 issue of Newsweek ran an article called "Saddam’s Files," written by Michael Isikoff. It stated:

President Bush said lots of things about Saddam Hussein in the run-up to the Iraq War. But few of his charges grabbed more attention than an unscripted remark he made at a Texas political fund-raiser on Sept. 26, 2002. "After all, this is a guy who tried to kill my dad at one time," Bush said. The comment referred to a 1993 claim by the Kuwaiti government—accepted by the Clinton administration—that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) had plotted to assassinate President George H. W. Bush during a trip to Kuwait that spring …

But curiously little has been heard about the allegedly foiled assassination plot in the five years since the U.S. military invaded Iraq. A just-released Pentagon study on the Iraqi regime's ties to terrorism only adds to the mystery. The review, conducted for the Pentagon's Joint Forces Command, combed through 600,000 pages of Iraqi intelligence documents seized after the fall of Baghdad, as well as thousands of hours of audio- and videotapes of Saddam's conversations with his ministers and top aides …

… But the Pentagon researchers found no documents that referred to a plan to kill Bush. The absence was conspicuous because researchers, aware of its potential significance, were looking for such evidence. "It was surprising," said one source familiar with the preparation of the report (who under Pentagon ground rules was not permitted to speak on the record). Given how much the Iraqis did document, "you would have thought there would have been some veiled reference to something about [the plot]."

Despite the Pentagon coming clean after 15 years of the public believing a myth about the nonexistent assassination attempt, not too much has changed in the perception and reporting of those times. In April 2008, weeks after the Pentagon announced the Kuwaiti hoax, the National Defense University, a quasi-government organization, published a report called Choosing War: The Decision to Invade Iraq and Its Aftermath," written by Colonel Joseph J. Collins, a retired U.S. Army officer.

Collins seemed to be writing about a fantasy scenario of Iraq. His assessments were not accurate and at times, differed greatly from the facts. One of them stated: "Since the Republicans had last been in power, Saddam had tried to assassinate the elder Bush." No one challenged Collins’ statement, despite the Pentagon’s earlier declaration. It appears that no matter how many people debunk this lie, it has a life of its own and will go down in history as fact.

Hersh was quite right in his assessment of picking on the weak. U.S. citizens take pride in the fact that their society scorns bullies who pick on defenseless adversaries. However, they contradict their own philosophy by cheering on the murdering of foreign civilians who are the weakest prey of all.

These cowardly actions transcend political allegiances in the U.S. Obama (remember, the anti-war candidate), condemned Iran’s actions in putting down demonstrations. On June 23, 2009, he told the press, "And we deplore violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place.'' On the same day, news headlines read, "Deadly 'Drone Attack’ Hits Pakistan." It appears that at least 40 Pakistani civilians were killed while at a funeral. Obama ordered the strike. It seems that Pakistanis, Iraqis and Afghanis don’t count. The lies and hypocrisy of the blood thirst of U.S. politicians, and many civilians, remain unabated.

Somethings gripped me today and brought to mind it might be time to post this poem from our Library. It seemed to settle and make sense of the gripping events.

Not Normal
by Charles Bukowski

when I was in grammar school
our teacher told us a story
about a sailor
who told the captain,
"the flag? I hope that I never
see the flag again!"
"very well," he was told,
"you will get your
wish!"
and they put him in the
hold of the sailing ship
and kept him there,
sending down his
food
and he died down there
without ever seeing the
flag again.

it was a real horror
story for the other children,
very
effective.
but it wasn't quite
as effective with
me.

I sat there thinking,
well, it's too bad
about not seeing the
flag
but the best part was
not having to see the
other people.

I didn't raise my hand to
say anything about that,
though.
that would mean that
I didn't want to see them
either.
which was true.

I looked straight forward
at the blackboard
which looked far better
than
any of
them.

By William Blum
Jun 14, 2010

Things internationally are so dispiriting there’s nothing left to do but fantasize. I picture Turkey, as a member of NATO, demanding that the alliance come to its defense after being attacked by Israel. Under Article 5 of the NATO charter an armed attack on one member is deemed to constitute an armed attack on all members.

That is the ostensible reason NATO is fighting in Afghanistan -- the attack against the United States on September 11, 2001 is regarded as an attack on all NATO members (disregarding the awkward fact that Afghanistan as a country had nothing to do with the attack). The Israeli attack on a Turkish-flagged ship, operated by a Turkish humanitarian organization, killing nine Turkish nationals and wounding many more can certainly constitute an attack upon a NATO member.

So, after the United States, the UK, Germany, France and other leading NATO members offer their ridiculous non-sequitur excuses why they can’t . . . umm . . . er . . . invoke Article 5, and the international media swallows it all without any indigestion, Turkey demands that Israel should at least lose its formal association with NATO as a member of the Mediterranean Dialogue. This too is dismissed with scorn by the eminent NATO world powers on the grounds that it would constitute a victory for terrorism. And anti-Semitism, of course.

Turkey then withdraws from NATO. Azerbaijan and five other Central Asian members of NATO’s Partnership for Peace with Turkic constituencies do the same. NATO falls into a crisis. Remaining member countries begin to question the organization’s policies as never before . . . like please tell us again why our young men are killing and dying in Afghanistan, and why we send them to Kosovo and Iraq and other places the Americans deem essential to their endlessly-threatened national security.

When Vice President Biden tells the eminent conservative-in-liberal-clothing pseudo-intellectual Charlie Rose on TV that “We have put as much pressure and as much cajoling on Israel as we can to allow them [Gaza] to get building materials in,” Rose for once rises to the occasion and acts like a real journalist, asking Biden: “Have you threatened Israel with ending all military and economic aid? . . . Have you put the names of Israeli officials on your list of foreigners who cannot enter the United States and whose bank accounts in the US are frozen, as you’ve done with numerous foreign officials who were not supporters of the empire? . . . Since Israel has committed both crimes against the peace and crimes against humanity, and since these are crimes that have international jurisdiction, certain Israeli political and military personnel can be named in trials held in any country of the world. Will you be instructing the attorney general to proceed with such an indictment? Or if some other country which is a member of the International Criminal Court calls upon the ICC to prosecute these individuals, will the United States try to block the move? . . . Why hasn’t the United States itself delivered building materials to Gaza?”

When Israel justifies its murders on the grounds of “self-defense,” late-night TV comedians Jay Leno and David Letterman find great humor in this, pointing out that a new memoir by China’s premier at the time of the 1989 Tiananmen Square violent suppression defends the military action by saying that soldiers acted in “self-defense” when they fired on the democracy activists.

When Israel labels as “terrorists” the ship passengers who offered some resistance to the Israeli invaders, the New York Times points out that the passengers who resisted the 9-11 highjackers on the plane which crashed in Pennsylvania are called “heroes.” (As an aside, it’s worth noting that the United States uses 9-11 as Israel uses the Holocaust -- as excuse and justification for all manner of illegal and violent international behavior.)

Meanwhile, the Washington Post reminds its readers that in 2009 Israel attacked a boat on international waters carrying medical aid to Gaza with former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney aboard; and that in 1967 Israel attacked an American ship, the USS Liberty, killing 34 and wounding about 173, and that President Johnson did then just what President Obama is doing now and would have done then -- nothing.

And finally, Secretary of State Clinton declares that she’s had a revelation. She realizes that what she recently said about North Korea when it was accused of having torpedoed a South Korean warship applies as well to Israel. Mrs. Clinton had demanded that Pyongyang “stop its provocative behavior, halt its policy of threats of belligerence towards its neighbors, and take irreversible steps to fulfill its denuclearization commitments and comply with international law.” She adds that the North Korean guilt is by no means conclusive, while Israel doesn’t deny its attack on the ship at all; moreover, it’s not known for sure if North Korea actually possesses nuclear weapons, whereas there’s no uncertainty about Israel’s large stockpile.

So there you have it. Hypocrisy reigns. Despite my best fantasizing. Is hypocrisy a moral failing or a failure of the intellect? When President Obama says, as he has often, “No one is above the law” and in his next breath makes it clear that his administration will not seek to indict Bush or Cheney for any crimes, does he think that no one will notice the contradiction, the hypocrisy? That’s a callous disregard for public opinion and/or a dumbness worthy of his predecessor.

And when he declares: “The future does not belong to those who gather armies on a field of battle or bury missiles in the ground,” does it not occur to him at all that he’s predicting a bleak outlook for the United States? Or that his conscious, deliberate policy is to increase the size of America’s army and its stockpile of missiles?

Comrades, can the hypocrisy and the lies reach such a magnitude that enough American true believers begin to question their cherished faith, so that their number reaches a critical mass and explodes? Well, it’s already happened with countless Americans, but it’s an awfully formidable task keeping pace with what is turned out by the mass media and education factories. They’re awfully good at what they do. Too bad. But don’t forsake the struggle. What better way is there to live this life? And remember, just because the world has been taken over by lying, hypocritical, mass-murdering madmen doesn’t mean we can’t have a good time.

---

Part 1

---

Part 2

Sanctions For Iran

By Kourosh Ziabari

The Iranian nation is not unfamiliar with the double standards of the superpowers anymore. The history of Iran's relations with the western and eastern superpowers is filled with deceitfulness, dishonesty and fraudulence. The recent U.S.-proposed, Russia-backed United Nations Security Council resolution against Iran over its nuclear program is simply one example out of hundreds of instances which demonstrate that the big powers have not ever been honest and sincere with Iran.

While the international community is witness to the flagrant, ceaseless and unrelenting felonies of the illegitimate regime of Israel in the occupied territories of Gaza and West Bank, United Nations Security Council blindly voted in favor of an unfair, unilateral and unjustifiable round of sanctions against the most pacifist and peace-lover country in the region simply because it wants to progress its civilian nuclear program domestically and without foreign intervention.

The new round of sanctions against Iran comes in the wake of Israel's continued blockade of the Gaza strip in violation of the UNSC resolution 1860 which demanded Tel Aviv last year to end the siege and allow the humanitarian aids to be transferred to the beleaguered enclave. More interestingly, the UNSC resolution against Iran was adopted while the international community was expecting a decisive and clear-cut reaction to Israel's assault on the convoy of humanitarian aid heading from Turkey towards the Gaza strip.

Israel's recent incursion into the sailboats of Freedom Flotilla which cost the lives of 20 peace activists and left 50 others wounded was a clear and untainted violation of Fourth Geneva Convention and the Rome Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation of 1988. Let's pose a simple question: what would happen if it was Iran that had attacked the Freedom Flotilla? Would the reaction of UNSC have been the same?

The exercise of double standards knows no nationality, race, time and place. Over the past four months, the White House recurrently attacked Iran over the incarceration of three American hikers who entered Iran illegally and are now awaiting trial by the judiciary over their lawbreaking. Did the same American officials say a single word in protest to the killing of Furkan Dogan, the 19-year-old American-Turkish high school boy whom the Israeli forces killed in what they called the "Operation Sea Breeze"? Did they protest when the IDF troops boarded on the Freedom Flotilla and arrested Edward Peck, the former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and Mauritania? Would they react similarly if Iran had arrested a former U.S. Ambassador?

Israel attacked the citizens of 37 countries in a vicious operation which extremely frightened the international community and once again showed the brutal and inhuman nature of the Zionist regime. Most of the European officials who condemned the attack for fear of the growing anger of public opinions did their best to use the most softened and equivocal language so as to avoid targeting Israeli officials directly. Nobody tried to hold Tel Aviv accountable for what was an evident and undeniable massacre of defenseless civilians who were trying to break an illegal imprisonment of more than 1.5 million people who are in dire need of foodstuff, medicines, fuel, gasoline, wheelchairs, renewed infrastructure and shelter. Over the past 40 years, Israel has demolished more than 9000 Palestinian homes and is now holding some 1.5 million people in an open-air jail which no international body has so far succeeded to unlock.

Israel autonomously violates international regulations, defies the calls of UN and human rights organizations and even disregards the calls of its own citizens who sympathize with the subjugated and anguished people of Palestine. UNSC ignores all of these crimes and felonies indifferently and adopts a resolution against Iran to punish the country for its civilian nuclear program, overlooking the 200 nuclear warheads which are accumulated in the arsenals of Israeli regime. That is something which even exceeds double standards. This is the inhumanity of UNSC.

Riches of Minerals in Afghanistan

By James Risen

June 13, 2010

WASHINGTON — The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.

The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe.

An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the "Saudi Arabia of lithium," a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and Blackberries.

The vast scale of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth was discovered by a small team of Pentagon officials and American geologists. The Afghan government and President Hamid Karzai were recently briefed, American officials said.

While it could take many years to develop a mining industry, the potential is so great that officials and executives in the industry believe it could attract heavy investment even before mines are profitable, providing the possibility of jobs that could distract from generations of war.

"There is stunning potential here," Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the United States Central Command, said in an interview on Saturday. "There are a lot of ifs, of course, but I think potentially it is hugely significant."

The value of the newly discovered mineral deposits dwarfs the size of Afghanistan’s existing war-bedraggled economy, which is based largely on opium production and narcotics trafficking as well as aid from the United States and other industrialized countries. Afghanistan’s gross domestic product is only about $12 billion.

"This will become the backbone of the Afghan economy," said Jalil Jumriany, an adviser to the Afghan minister of mines.

American and Afghan officials agreed to discuss the mineral discoveries at a difficult moment in the war in Afghanistan. The American-led offensive in Marja in southern Afghanistan has achieved only limited gains. Meanwhile, charges of corruption and favoritism continue to plague the Karzai government, and Mr. Karzai seems increasingly embittered toward the White House.

So the Obama administration is hungry for some positive news to come out of Afghanistan. Yet the American officials also recognize that the mineral discoveries will almost certainly have a double-edged impact.

Instead of bringing peace, the newfound mineral wealth could lead the Taliban to battle even more fiercely to regain control of the country.

The corruption that is already rampant in the Karzai government could also be amplified by the new wealth, particularly if a handful of well-connected oligarchs, some with personal ties to the president, gain control of the resources. Just last year, Afghanistan’s minister of mines was accused by American officials of accepting a $30 million bribe to award China the rights to develop its copper mine. The minister has since been replaced.

Endless fights could erupt between the central government in Kabul and provincial and tribal leaders in mineral-rich districts. Afghanistan has a national mining law, written with the help of advisers from the World Bank, but it has never faced a serious challenge.

"No one has tested that law; no one knows how it will stand up in a fight between the central government and the provinces," observed Paul A. Brinkley, undersecretary of defense and leader of the Pentagon team that discovered the deposits.

At the same time, American officials fear resource-hungry China will try to dominate the development of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth, which could upset the United States, given its heavy investment in the region. After winning the bid for its Aynak copper mine in Logar Province, China clearly wants more, American officials said.

Another complication is that because Afghanistan has never had much heavy industry before, it has little or no history of environmental protection either. "The big question is, can this be developed in a responsible way, in a way that is environmentally and socially responsible?" Mr. Brinkley said. "No one knows how this will work."

With virtually no mining industry or infrastructure in place today, it will take decades for Afghanistan to exploit its mineral wealth fully. "This is a country that has no mining culture," said Jack Medlin, a geologist in the United States Geological Survey’s international affairs program. "They’ve had some small artisanal mines, but now there could be some very, very large mines that will require more than just a gold pan."

The mineral deposits are scattered throughout the country, including in the southern and eastern regions along the border with Pakistan that have had some of the most intense combat in the American-led war against the Taliban insurgency.

The Pentagon task force has already started trying to help the Afghans set up a system to deal with mineral development. International accounting firms that have expertise in mining contracts have been hired to consult with the Afghan Ministry of Mines, and technical data is being prepared to turn over to multinational mining companies and other potential foreign investors. The Pentagon is helping Afghan officials arrange to start seeking bids on mineral rights by next fall, officials said.

"The Ministry of Mines is not ready to handle this," Mr. Brinkley said. "We are trying to help them get ready."

Like much of the recent history of the country, the story of the discovery of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth is one of missed opportunities and the distractions of war.

In 2004, American geologists, sent to Afghanistan as part of a broader reconstruction effort, stumbled across an intriguing series of old charts and data at the library of the Afghan Geological Survey in Kabul that hinted at major mineral deposits in the country. They soon learned that the data had been collected by Soviet mining experts during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, but cast aside when the Soviets withdrew in 1989.

During the chaos of the 1990s, when Afghanistan was mired in civil war and later ruled by the Taliban, a small group of Afghan geologists protected the charts by taking them home, and returned them to the Geological Survey’s library only after the American invasion and the ouster of the Taliban in 2001.

"There were maps, but the development did not take place, because you had 30 to 35 years of war," said Ahmad Hujabre, an Afghan engineer who worked for the Ministry of Mines in the 1970s.

Armed with the old Russian charts, the United States Geological Survey began a series of aerial surveys of Afghanistan’s mineral resources in 2006, using advanced gravity and magnetic measuring equipment attached to an old Navy Orion P-3 aircraft that flew over about 70 percent of the country.

The data from those flights was so promising that in 2007, the geologists returned for an even more sophisticated study, using an old British bomber equipped with instruments that offered a three-dimensional profile of mineral deposits below the earth’s surface. It was the most comprehensive geologic survey of Afghanistan ever conducted.

The handful of American geologists who pored over the new data said the results were astonishing.

But the results gathered dust for two more years, ignored by officials in both the American and Afghan governments. In 2009, a Pentagon task force that had created business development programs in Iraq was transferred to Afghanistan, and came upon the geological data. Until then, no one besides the geologists had bothered to look at the information — and no one had sought to translate the technical data to measure the potential economic value of the mineral deposits.

Soon, the Pentagon business development task force brought in teams of American mining experts to validate the survey’s findings, and then briefed Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Mr. Karzai.

So far, the biggest mineral deposits discovered are of iron and copper, and the quantities are large enough to make Afghanistan a major world producer of both, United States officials said. Other finds include large deposits of niobium, a soft metal used in producing superconducting steel, rare earth elements and large gold deposits in Pashtun areas of southern Afghanistan.

Just this month, American geologists working with the Pentagon team have been conducting ground surveys on dry salt lakes in western Afghanistan where they believe there are large deposits of lithium. Pentagon officials said that their initial analysis at one location in Ghazni Province showed the potential for lithium deposits as large of those of Bolivia, which now has the world’s largest known lithium reserves.

For the geologists who are now scouring some of the most remote stretches of Afghanistan to complete the technical studies necessary before the international bidding process is begun, there is a growing sense that they are in the midst of one of the great discoveries of their careers.

"On the ground, it’s very, very, promising," Mr. Medlin said. "Actually, it’s pretty amazing."

Israel's Atrocities

By Linda S. Heard
Jun 11, 2010

Did you ever wonder why so many people in the US appear to be blind to Israel’s crimes? No matter how many international laws it breaks or UN Security Council resolutions it trashes, most Americans are oblivious to the truth.

Think about it! Since 2006, Israel has launched a war of aggression on Lebanon, killing 1,200. Then, in 2007, it began a complete blockade of Gaza before attacking its residents in the winter of 2008-09 and killing 1,440. Now, its commandos gun down nine activists on a humanitarian ship in international waters.

Yet even before the bodies were placed into coffins, the Israeli government attempted to paint these heroes as armed terrorists.

Palestinian advocates are amazed that this tiny US ally gets away with perpetrating atrocities over and over again with little more than a slap on the wrist. What is equally shocking is the backing the Israeli authorities receive from large sections of the American public.

You only have to tune in to US television networks such as Fox News or CNN. Their spin reflects the pro-Israel view of Congress and public sentiment that invariably sides with the Jewish state.

Israel’s narrative is so protected in the US that lawmakers have passed a bill calling for punitive measures against television networks in the Middle East for fuelling hatred. Such a move ensures that Americans remain indoctrinated.

Now for confession time! If these horrible events had occurred during my teens and early twenties, I would have probably been marching with Israel’s supporters.

The fact is that from the age of nine I grew up in a predominately Jewish area of London. Our neighbours on either side were Hassidic Jews and at least 70 percent of the girls in my grammar school were Jewish supporters of “poor little Israel surrounded by 100,000 hostile Arabs.”

During the 1967 war, several of my school friends flew to Israel to work on Kibbutzim and I remember wanting to go too. This didn’t go down very well with my naval officer father, who had fond memories of playing football with Palestinians in Haifa during the Second World War.

Some years later, I spent some time in Cyprus, where I was introduced to the Middle East expert and author Desmond Stewart and his agent Gillon Aitken. A lively discussion on the Israel-Palestine conflict ensued with Stewart and Aitken in Palestine’s corner and me stridently rooting for Israel as though I knew it all.

I still cringe at the thought of my arrogance and ignorance. They, on the other hand, were astonishingly patient while Stewart was kind enough to send me his book The Arab World.

My attitude softened when I lived in Algeria during the early 1970s, mainly because I had the opportunity to work with Palestinians, who told me their stories. But I wasn’t convinced enough to do a 180-degree U-turn.

Quite honestly, I must have been a complete idiot (I know, I’m leaving myself open with that one). I’ll tell you why. Algerian friends invited me to a party in Algiers and as my French was rusty in those days, I gravitated towards a small gathering of English-speakers, who turned out to be Palestinians.

Our topic of conversation was Palestine when, naturally, I launched into my usual babble. We spoke for hours. They told me of their enforced exodus from Palestine and the hardships they had endured. One explained that he was stateless. Another showed me a key to his father’s house that hung around his neck although he knew he would never live there again. A third described how life was like in a squalid refugee camp.

As I was leaving, one of the young men took me to one side to say, “Do you know who we are? We are Black September and I can assure you if you had been a man you would have been thrown out of that window.”

But everything changed for me when I actually visited Tel Aviv in 1974 and saw with my own eyes how Arabs are treated as second class citizens. In occupied Jerusalem, I witnessed elderly Palestinian women being stopped and searched and an Israeli soldier mercilessly taunting a Palestinian youth, who was hauled off when he was driven to snap back.

It soon became clear that my Israeli ‘friends’ considered the Palestinians as little better than vermin who should be exterminated. I was also a target of Israeli bigotry myself when a clinic refused to treat me for severe sunburn because I wasn’t Jewish and a hotel manager decided to berate me for having Arab stamps in my passport.

The other day, I heard an American activist on Al Jazeera saying, if ordinary Americans were allowed to know the truth they would turn over their country’s pro-Israel policy in a heartbeat.

If my own journey to an awakening of conscience is anything to go by, he may have a point.

Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.

June 9, 2010 13:48 IST
Prasanna Zore

A day after a very disappointing verdict in India's worst industrial disaster, rediff.com's Prasanna Zore visits ground zero at the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal.

A huge ominous looking, dilapidated hospital greets you at the entrance of what was the dreaded Union Carbide of India Limited plant in Bhopal. As you surreptitiously venture inside the sprawling 93-acre plot, red metal in various state of erosion coldly overlooks a neighbourhood, whose people still shiver when they recall that fateful night of December 2, 1984.

Nearly 41 tonnes of methyl isocyanate (MIC) and Phosgene gas, both noxious and lethal chemicals that are used as intermediates in the manufacture of fertilizer Sevin, leaked out after midnight on December 2 from an underground storage tank that had been installed at the Indian subsidiary of Union Carbide Corporation in Bhopal.

The leak lead to the largest industrial catastrophe in the world's history that killed some 15,274 (official figure as per a judicial review) and affected some 6 lakh --of Bhopal's total population of 9 lakh in 1984 of the town's populace who suffer from chronic joint pains, itchy skin, muscle weakness, poor eyesight, lung cancer to this day.

It was not just the MIC that wreaked havoc. Another poisonous chemical agent Phosgene also leaked into the air and spread fast as the winter winds blew across the plant and spread the gas

The facts need to be reiterated as Bhopal's Chief Judicial Magistrate Mohan Tiwari, announced his verdict convicting eight Indians--notable amongst them Keshub Mahindra, currently chairman of Mahindra & Mahindra, who was the erstwhile chairman of Union Carbide India Limited.

Ironically, all 8 of them were released on a bail of Rs 25,000 despite the fact that these accused were also served two years' imprisonment by the lower court under Section 304 A of the Indian Penal Code instead of Section 304 (Part II). Interestingly, Justice A M Ahmadi in his September 13, 1996 judgment had diluted the charge from Section 304 (Part II) to Section 304 (A).

After this judgment there was no way the lower court would have announced punishment of more than two years, rue a number of activists who have been in the forefront of the victims' fight for justice from an "unresponsive and uncaring state administration and a judiciary that connives with the state government, union government and multinational companies," says Abdul Jabbar of Bhopal Gas Peedit Mahila Udyog Sanghatan (organisation of women affected by the Bhopal gas tragedy).

While UCC has shirked off its responsibility by saying that they made no decisions as far as day to day maintenance and operations of their Indian subsidiary were concerned, people who worked in the factory said that all decision to cut costs, design specifications and daily production estimates came from the US-based headquarters.

Take the case of this (pictured) tower. One of the floor engineers who now works as a tourist guide (he is one among several who take European tourists on a guided tour of the premise with permission from the district collector) said that had this tower been manned by 5 people instead of one on that fateful day, several thousand precious lives could have been saved.
But why was only one man operating on this tower that maintains release of toxic gases in air? "Because the company had downsized its operations to cut costs," says he while refusing to come on record for this story. "The absence of four people from this tower was also part of UCC's cost-cutting exercise."

There is, though, one more startling fact, which if the company had been responsible enough, that could have helped save thousands.
According to the tourist guide, when the gas leaked out from the underground storage tank, it formed a blanket almost three feet above the ground. Whatever was below this height remained unaffected. Most of the trees got charred because of the gases were charred above three feet, he says to stress his point.

"The workers were trained on how to act in case of leakage of Phosgene and MIC. The environment safety engineers had advised them to sleep on the ground in such a situation with their faces covered with moist handkerchiefs to avoid getting affected by both these gases.Those workers who did so survived while those who panicked and ran towards the gate to save their lives died."

Victims' groups have mobilised themselves under the leadership of Satinath Sarangi, a 48-year-old survivor. In 1997, he met Raj Sharma, a lawyer who had just graduated out of the American University Law School.

While in college, Sharma took a course offered by a visiting professor, Upendra Bakshi, that informed him about the legal history of the Bhopal accident.

Sharma was hooked. He decided to leave for Bhopal following his graduation.

"The scene in Bhopal was very bad. There was a situation where one person was dying every day. The long-term consequences were beginning to set in, most strongly in women, such as severe menstrual irregularities, birth defects in the children of survivors and such," says Sharma.

Two years later, Sharma filed a lawsuit in the US against Union Carbide and Anderson, and has been litigating since.

Even as he is impressed by the will of the Bhopal victims to pursue justice, he expresses shock at the behaviour of Indian government officials.

"The Indian government refused to put in even a single line or letter for us. They did not want to be embarrassed in front of Union Carbide, embarrassed to be supporting their own people. I had heard of the government's collusion with the company before I left for Bhopal. I said to myself, 'Don't be naive, this cannot be true,' until I saw it happening with my own eyes," says Sharma.
Photographs: Paresh Gandhi in New York

The lack of Indian political will has a lot to do with economics, claim those involved with the movement. "The Government of India is bending over backwards to appease Union Carbide, now Dow Chemicals. They are very afraid of creating a negative environment for international corporations in line to invest in India," believes Rajagopal.

India's Central Bureau of Investigation, the prosecuting agency, recently filed papers to reduce the charges against Anderson, much to the outrage of activists fighting to bring him to India for trial. But the Bhopal high court judge rejected the CBI papers, reasoning that Anderson had not applied to any Indian court to dilute the charges against him.

In a 1989 settlement, Union Carbide paid the Indian government $470 million as damages. The amount had scaled down from the $3 billion originally sought. But some victims are still waiting to receive their share of the money.

When a Channel Four reporter from London landed at Anderson's home last week, he found Lillian Anderson on the front lawn.

'It is not Union Carbide's fault,' she told the reporter. 'Union Carbide has been good to them. You just do not understand. We did all we can.'

When the reporter urged her to answer more questions, she excused herself to prepare for a dinner party that she complained was 'not even catered.'

"This is essentially saying 'we are more concerned about our dinner party than discussing the lives of hundreds and thousands of people that continue to suffer in the aftermath of the disaster. Leave us alone because we have to go and live our nice life,'" Harrell said.

Journalist Shakti Bhatt located former Union Carbide Chairman Warren Anderson's luxury home in New York, declared unknown by the American and Indian governments, in India Abroad, the newspaper owned by Rediff.com, back in September 2002.

The lack of Indian political will has a lot to do with economics, claim those involved with the movement. "The Government of India is bending over backwards to appease Union Carbide, now Dow Chemicals. They are very afraid of creating a negative environment for international corporations in line to invest in India," believes Rajagopal.
India's Central Bureau of Investigation, the prosecuting agency, recently filed papers to reduce the charges against Anderson, much to the outrage of activists fighting to bring him to India for trial. But the Bhopal high court judge rejected the CBI papers, reasoning that Anderson had not applied to any Indian court to dilute the charges against him.

In a 1989 settlement, Union Carbide paid the Indian government $470 million as damages. The amount had scaled down from the $3 billion originally sought. But some victims are still waiting to receive their share of the money.

When a Channel Four reporter from London landed at Anderson's home last week, he found Lillian Anderson on the front lawn.

'It is not Union Carbide's fault,' she told the reporter. 'Union Carbide has been good to them. You just do not understand. We did all we can.'

When the reporter urged her to answer more questions, she excused herself to prepare for a dinner party that she complained was 'not even catered.'

"This is essentially saying 'we are more concerned about our dinner party than discussing the lives of hundreds and thousands of people that continue to suffer in the aftermath of the disaster. Leave us alone because we have to go and live our nice life,'" Harrell said.

As a Bhopal court convicted eight people on Monday, June 7, for the worst-ever industrial disaster, we reproduce the global scoop:

Warren Anderson's home in Bridgehampton, New York, militates against the notion of a hiding place.

Located on a street that runs off the main road, the gates of the house are open. As you enter, the neatly trimmed garden flowers, alternatively red and white, vie for attention with the sparkling vintage Buick Roadmaster parked outside the door.

If you stroll around the house, you come upon a large freshly cut lawn with two full-size beach chairs. The curtains in the bedroom are drawn. A king size bed with cream sheets and satin blue pillows, flanked by an ornate headboard, has just been tidied.

Anderson and his wife Lillian live in this luxury home in the Hamptons, the weekend resort for the rich and famous. And, occasionally, the infamous.

Anderson has lived here since he was charged with 'culpable homicide' for the disaster at the Union Carbide factory in Bhopal in December 1984 that consumed the lives of over 20,000 people. If Anderson -- then Union Carbide CEO -- is ever extradited to India, he could face charges leading to 10 to 20 years in a dirty, overcrowded, rat-infested Indian prison.

Bridgehampton is an intensely private neighbourhood. An outsider driving around its roads is distinctly discernible and stared at. A five-minute walk from Anderson's home on Ocean Road takes you to the water. A man is perched in his red sports jeep, reading a golf magazine.

"Do you know Warren Anderson?" I ask him.

He looks up, a trifle annoyed at being disturbed. "Yeah. I mean we are not best friends but I know who he is," he says.

I begin to walk away. He stops me and says, "You know, yesterday there was this woman outside his home with a poster saying 'Go back to India'."

"Do you know why?" I ask.

"Nope. That is his business,' says the gray-haired man, and goes back to his magazine.

Since he was declared absconder in 2002, Anderson was not part of the case in which 8 were convicted on Monday
--

Diane Wilson, a shrimp farmer from Texas who now spends most of her time holding protests against the former CEO of Union Carbide, now a part of Michigan-based Dow Chemicals.

When a rally of more than 1,000 protestors stood outside his home last week, he stepped outside to speak to them.

"Yell at them is more like it," says Arvind Rajagopal, professor of media at New York University who is involved with the Bhopal awareness campaign in this country. "He said, 'Get your facts right. They bulldozed the clinic we built'. That is bullshit. No clinic was bulldozed. In fact, the only clinic they built is still there in Bhopal."

Anderson is clearly upset he has been found.

It was detection work not by an investigative journalist but by a campaigner for GreenPeace. Casey Harrell left his office in Washington, DC, early one morning to drive to New York. He knew it was going to be an exciting day.

After weeks of research, he had located the address of Anderson's $900,000 home, declared unknown by the American and Indian governments. Harrell wanted to meet Anderson and serve him the arrest warrant issued 10 years ago by a Bhopal district court.

August 28, Harrell sat inside his car with a colleague. A day before, photographers from London's Mirror newspaper had shot a picture of a visibly disconcerted Anderson.

Anderson's Cadillac pulled into his house. Harrell waited. Anderson was rinsing the gravel off his car when Harrell, with a mini camera on him, made his move. Guessing the nature of Harrell's visit, Anderson said, 'Oh, Mr Anderson is not around right now. What do you want with him?'

Harrell, while recognising Anderson, replied he had some questions to ask the owner. Right after, an elderly woman driving her car stopped outside Anderson's home. She had noticed the signs of aggravation on Anderson's face.

'Hey, Anderson! Is anything the matter?' she called out.

"It was then that Anderson got really agitated," recalls Harrell.

"He told the lady not to mention his name and ran inside the house. I started to run after him. Fortunately, as he was about to close the door, I stuck in my foot and threw the warrant inside."

Anderson's neighbor approached Harrell. 'You are mistaken. He is Warren McLaughlin, not Warren Anderson.' Seeing that her listener was not convinced, she raised her voice in exasperation and repeated, 'Don't you understand? He is not the former Union Carbide executive.'

Harrell smiled. 'Ma'am, I never said anything about Union Carbide.'

'Oh my!' gasped Anderson's helpful neighbour and sped away in her Lincoln.

For Harrell and those actively involved in helping Bhopal's victims receive justice, this was a symbolic act. In the 18 years that have passed since the tragedy, little has been done for the families that continue to suffer the long-term consequences of the toxic gas leakage that led, among other things, to severe contamination of the groundwater. Ninety per cent of the victims are said to have received less than $500.