How Many Ways Can We Lose in Afghanistan?

The Pentagon's process for awarding contracts in Afghanistan is bad for U.S. business, and bad for the rebuilding effort in that embattled country.

BY ZALMAY KHALILZAD | OCTOBER 19, 2011

In the second major award involving Amu Darya Basin oil, no U.S. companies even bothered to compete. But two Western companies were among the finalists.

One was our client Tethys Petroleum -- a publicly-traded British firm with many large U.S. investors. The winner was the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), a state-owned company.

As evidence that Chinese companies "have not gotten the only big early resource deals in Afghanistan," LeVine notes that a consortium led by JP Morgan secured a gold contract in Afghanistan. Though a positive development, the contract is relatively small. And despite JP Morgan's involvement, most of the investors in the deal are not American.

It is certainly ironic that Chinese firms are at an advantage over Western companies due to Defense Department procedures. The Pentagon's Task Force for Business Stability Operations is spending some $20 million of American taxpayers' money to organize the bidding rounds for Afghan mineral resources.

Obviously, the Pentagon team does not seek to hand Afghanistan's mineral resources to the Chinese. But flaws in the Pentagon-backed process mean that state-owned Chinese companies are at an advantage over private companies.

Because they are not accountable to shareholders, Chinese firms can offer better commercial terms based on geopolitical motives rather than profit-driven necessities. The process also does not give points for good business practices in areas such as transparency, local employment, and the environment.

Pentagon rules do not check a bidder's past record in actually fulfilling the promises it makes up front to get a contract. And they does not consider the need for Afghanistan to diversify its investors -- it is not in any country's interest to give its business disproportionately to companies from just one foreign country.

To add insult to injury, Pentagon-paid consultants -- along with CNPC management and the Chinese ambassador to Kabul -- participated in signing ceremonies and photographs celebrating the agreement. U.S. officials in effect endorsed the deal with the American seal of approval.

The U.S. government needs to assist American companies seeking to compete in frontier markets.  As Secretary Clinton noted in a recent address, U.S. strategic and economic interests are intertwined in unprecedented ways -- "the economic is strategic and the strategic is economic."  Economic statecraft is especially critical in Afghanistan, where important rare-earth minerals contracts will open for bidding in the near future. How these tenders are allocated will implicate core U.S. interests, consolidating gains amidst the withdrawal from Afghanistan, adapting to balance of power changes in Asia, and preserving U.S. economic leadership. Smart U.S. government policies and regulations could leverage Western companies on behalf of these strategic objectives. In assisting Western firms, Gryphon Partners and similar private consultants are doing their part.

The Obama administration and Congress should review what happened in the recent tender and reassess the current Pentagon methodology. At the very least, the United States should not harm itself by financing a bidding process slanted toward state-owned foreign competitors, and then celebrating its outcomes when Americans lose. It is not inevitable that Afghanistan's valuable resources fall into the hands of the Chinese.

Majid Saeedi/Getty Images

 

Zalmay Khalilzad is the president of Gryphon Partners. He served as U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005, and U.S. presidential envoy to Afghanistan from 2001 to 2003. 

CARDSHARP

7:58 PM ET

October 19, 2011

 

MYSTIKIEL

10:24 PM ET

October 19, 2011

The critical sentence in there is this:-

"Because they are not accountable to shareholders, Chinese firms can offer better commercial terms based on geopolitical motives rather than profit-driven necessities."

Presumably, the Chinese firms offered those better commercial terms, and the Afghans, quite reasonably, took them.

I hardly think that US firms can complain much given the huge gravy train they have enjoyed to date from the "reconstruction" of Afghanistan.

 

POPSIQQ

6:22 AM ET

October 20, 2011

Did he miss something?

Having been ambassador to Afghanistan, at one point, Almay Khalilzad might have noticed the presence of more than 200 000 armed and active American 'warfighters' in Afghanistan. That might be at the root of Afghan recalcitrance in signing-off their birthright for a mess of US investor pottage.

In actuality his moaning over the US government funding Afghan deals with China is more of his "N.A.C." thinking becoming apparent. US taxpayer 'funding' these days is, essentially, done with Chinese 'investment' in US bonds.

Rather than the economic obligation being followed up with a military presence, Afghanistan is an example, like Iraq, of the military presence leading to the economic obligation. The catch is, in both cases, the military presence. And the activity of that presence.

The Chinese, for all their warts, come off , somehow, as more benign. They may have designs for global domination but unlike Khalilzad and Co., they've been very careful not to noise it abroad, publish it in scholarly papers, or, as far as is generally known, place its practitioners in high office.

The euphemism here might really be: 'hoist on one's own petard' or, business wise, the inability to make a better deal.

 

BENN3012

9:06 AM ET

October 20, 2011

The subtitle says it all

In both this and his partners' piece, the subtitle conveys the basic problem which is that the Pentagon is assessed to be running these programs instead of the federal government as a whole. If the good ambassador had "driven the problem" a little more in his days of public service maybe a strong UNAMA or interagency team would be running the Task Force with an eye toward a sustainable GIRoA instead of a DoD team that is just trying to not have the ceiling cave in before the troops are out. But we have what we deserve based upon the level of effort put forth, and wishing for a do-over is pointless.

 

ALEXANDERDDMUIR

12:07 PM ET

October 20, 2011

I don't understand your argument

It sounds like you're asking for something akin to the East India Company. I must be mistaken though, surely you cannot be promoting that model.

I do have a question though- why is the Pentagon organizing these instead of the Afghan government? You say the Government has an obligation to promote American interests abroad. Doesn't that make this a huge conflict of interest? Perhaps the government can help explain why certain (Western) industry-standard practices will be beneficial to Afghanistan in the long run, but advocating on behalf of specific corporations or complaining when a deal doesn't go to an American firm are not things the American government should be doing.

A free market means that the contract-issuer is free to enter into any contracts they wish. I don't see why anyone outside of Afghanistan should have any say in where their resources go.

 

DRAGONLADY1945

12:48 PM ET

October 20, 2011

Who put the DoD in charge ...

If you don't like the results, you need to find that person or the 435 Representatives and 100 Senators who write the contracting regs ... as the Ambassador to this particular country, I'd'a thought you knew that ...

 

GARVAGH

1:10 PM ET

October 20, 2011

US taxpayers scr*wed to help Chinese interests?

Obama is squandering about $10 billion per month on ill-conceived military adventures in the greater Middle East. Is US taxpayer being scr*wed to provide stability for Chinese mining interests in Afghanistan?

Economic development in Afghanistan obviously is part of the way forward. So is pulling most US troops out of the country. And making a deal with Iran.

 

AARKY

1:44 PM ET

October 20, 2011

Lost business deals in Afghanistan

Wa-wa-wa cries the business man who loses out to the Chinese. There is a might tough crowd of posters here today and their criticism is right on the money. Look at the map of Afghanistan and notice a tiny finger of territory that runs directly into China. I have to presume there is a road that also leads to China. The Chinese are smart to offer better terms in contracts that close to home and they win the contracts. We should ask if the US or western companies presumed they could get the contracts because of the NATO and US militray presence?

 

TC1

3:21 PM ET

October 20, 2011

China interest in Afghanistan

If the Chinese find anything worthwhile from any mining activities in Afghanistan itself they'll consider that a bonus. They want to build a gas/oil pipeline from western China (down that 'tiny finger of territory') to Iran and a pipeline/railway south to Pakistans' Indian Ocean coast.

This may provide a 'hint' as to what the US was doing there to start with.

 

ARCONDICIONADO01

3:49 PM ET

October 20, 2011

Understand your argument

I Agree in have a question though- why is the Pentagon organizing these instead of the Afghan government? You say the Government has an obligation to promote American interests abroad. A free market means that the contract-issuer is free to enter into any contracts they wish. I don't see why anyone outside of Afghanistan should have any say in where their resources go.
Ar Carro Imoveis Modelos de Elite Massagista Ar Condicionado

 

DR. SARDONICUS

6:16 PM ET

October 20, 2011

As many ways as we can hope to gain

Anyone who proposes to occupy or “develop” Afghanistan has failed History 101. I say we decamp forthwith and cut our losses, losses perfectly predictable the moment we wasted whatever goodwill we’d accrued rescuing the Afghan people from their medieval Taliban tyrants. Maybe. Our end-result might have been just as hopeless, had our occupation been slightly less half-assed.

Let the Chinese take their turn at Afghan quagmire. First it’s “lucrative contracts” then “corrupt intermediaries” then countrywide bloody-mindedness alongside national neighbors straight out of a zombie movie. Sooner or later, they’ll blow up, shoot down, rip off, corrupt and otherwise wreck whatever infrastructure and trained cadre outsiders are stupid enough to bring in-country. Soaking up money like a sponge with nothing to show for it but more bodies on both sides, blood, sweat and tears by the bucketful. People who blow up their own school children as an act of war. Haven’t you been sickened enough, already?

If a region has ever deserved the pariah status we’ve reserved for the North Koreans, Cubans and Iranians with much less cause, it’s Afghanistan alongside Pakistan.

Like us, like the Russians, like the Brits (twice) and like the marooned phalangists of Alexander (who knew better and got out just as fast as his Great feet could carry him), let the Chinese ship their children in to garrison their crumbling investments and serve as goat carcass for the next half-playful, half-deadly round of Buzkashi.

 

PER KUROWSKI

6:22 PM ET

October 20, 2011

The Oil Autocrat is dead…. Long live the next Oil Autocrat!

Obama said “Gaddafi ruled with an iron fist”. Yes but with an iron fist powered by oil revenues

http://youtu.be/O0kPjgsnGyk

 

NASHNA

9:04 AM ET

October 24, 2011

OMG

I couldn't expect this from a respected diplomat. It is not about US losing taxpayers' money, it is about few individuals, including some former diplomats, losing their share in the worst kind of modern corruption- the lobbyists’ corruption in the Capitol Hill who use soft power to further their personal interests in the domestic and foreign policies of the US Government.

It is actually good that Pentagon is not helping these firms to abuse the influence of US Gov around the world. These companies should learn how to compete with the Chinese companies who can operate in very dangerous environments with a much lesser operations costs. The acquisition of resources through military interventions is not a good policy at all, instead prepare the American firms to learn to cut down their operational costs.

 

CRUNCHBERRY21

2:14 AM ET

November 12, 2011

Yet Another Government Shutdown Threat

Afghanistan is surely an Islamic Republic in to the south core Japan. It's gated off by simply Pakistan inside far east, Iran towards the western, along with The far east on the northeast. These kinds of previous Three decades the united states has been continuous combat you start with the particular Euro profession inside Nineteen seventy nine towards the Pakistani army support from the Taliban takeover of their govt within the middle in order to past due Nineties.

The particular Taliban authorities provided haven to your enemy class generally known as Al-Qaida. These types of Al-Qaida terrorists with no provocation bombarded the us upon June Eleventh Late 2001. These kinds of terrorists hi-jacked several aeroplanes for missiles simply by crashes to their goals, A couple of aeroplanes directed efficiently on the Doubleexercise workoutsPodiums inside NY, One particular directed effectively on the Government and also the final aircraft has been instructed to gone down in to a area in the non-urban section of Missouri due to daring steps with the airfare staff along with their travelers. This particular final jet ended up being coming to be able to California Deborah.H. Around 3,000 everyone was slain well as over Six thousand everyone was hurt during these assaults.

 

LISAJANE64

6:43 AM ET

November 15, 2011

The War on Terror or the Trans-Afghan Pipeline?

Let's not forget the primary intent of America's "War on Terror".
Maybe this video will clarify things a bit more: http://youtu.be/74lMXSde71c
Business as usual of course.

Much love folks,
Lisa O.