The news of vast natural resources in the form of minerals, worth over a trillion dollars, being discovered in Afghanistan is very important for the future of international relations, particularly US-Russian-Chinese relations, and for the way in which the great powers address regional issues in general, and where there is oil and precious minerals in particular. It is important news for the progress of the ongoing war in Afghanistan and for the situation of the government as well as that of the Taliban. Indeed, it could radically change the economy in a country that relies heavily on extracting narcotics, not on extracting a set of minerals of the greatest importance for new technologies. This is news that carries a tremendous impact on US President Barack Obama's relationship with his popular base inside the US and with his rival Republican politicians, knowing that part of his popular base is upset at what it calls “Obama's war in Afghanistan” and that his Republican rivals do not wish him success in Afghanistan. The Iraq-Iran-Afghanistan triangle had from the start been important for US policy since past decades, but the discovery of such vast resources in Afghanistan will place this triangle under a new microscope and will lead to different relations between the great powers. Certainly, there will be those who will shed doubt on the timing of the United States “discovering” such wealth and the timing of “revealing” it today. Some will say that the US had known of the existence of these minerals from the start, and has for this reason always been interested in Afghanistan, waging wars there directly or by proxy. They will say that the Afghanistan war, like the Iraq war, is a war of greed for natural resources – knowing that Iraq represents the second largest oil reserve in the neighborhood of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which holds the primary largest reserve. They will say that the US's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were fabricated and “made-up”, and were never due to the weapons of mass destruction that were the pretext for the Iraq war, nor to Al-Qaeda, terrorism or the violent extremism that is growing in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, there will be those who will remind us that the parties which produced fundamentalism in Afghanistan and created the Taliban, and perhaps Al-Qaeda as well, did this with US leadership and in partnership with Muslim countries for the sake of toppling the Soviet Union and its anti-religious ideology. Indeed, Afghanistan, which the Soviet Union invaded and occupied in the late 1970s, is where its collapse began. Perhaps the Soviets and the Americans have had early indications of what the depths of Afghanistan's soil held for decades. And perhaps the wars of Afghanistan and Iraq, and what they included from Al-Qaeda, its derivates and sibling organizations, have been wars for natural resources from the start. Yet what is clear today is that Barack Obama's method in dealing with the other great powers is completely different from that of George W. Bush, and perhaps from those of the US presidents, Democrats as well as Republicans, who preceded him in the White House. And there are indications of this. For example, George W. Bush's strategy and ideology relied on excluding others from the Iraq “cake” in order to monopolize the benefits of its oil resources economically and strategically. Indeed, Bush's ideology, dubbed the “preemptive ideology”, was aimed at preventing China from turning into a superpower that would compete against the US by controlling the source of the resources which it is in dire need of in order to become a superpower, i.e. oil resources. This was the reason behind the Iraq war. The issue is not limited to China, as Russia was targeted as well, and it was vital for the United States to “steal” Iraq away from Russia, as it had nearly become Russia's “cake”. The reason for this was not only strategic and political, but was also economic in the language of positioning oneself for the future as a superpower. Indeed, Iraq's oil reserves added to Russia's tremendous oil wealth and to the fact that it holds the largest natural gas reserve (followed by Qatar) would represent essential features of leadership in the world. Perhaps this was one of the reasons previous US administrations have made sure to adopt the policy of excluding Russia. The Obama Administration's policies seem on the one hand identical to those of his predecessors, including the policies of his immediate predecessor George W. Bush. Yet on the other hand they are radically different in terms of ideology and of the principles of sharing and partnership rather than exclusion and monopoly. Executively, Obama's policies in Iraq are the same ones he inherited from Bush, knowing that it was the previous administration that laid the bases for withdrawal from the cities and that the Commander of military operations in Iraq, General David Petraeus, is the same man who led the troops under Bush. The circumstances are similar in Afghanistan, with a difference in focus and in which of the two comes first. Ideologically however, Obama has repeatedly made clear and declared from the platform of the United Nations that he wants partnership with the other great powers and does not want to monopolize greatness. Obama nearly says that it is in the interest of the United States of America not to maintain its status as the world's sole superpower. He nearly declares his divorce from the Bush ideology based on the leadership of the single pole and on monopoly and exclusion. That is what is new and different, linguistically and ideologically, under Obama. And it is for this reason that new relationships are being forged with the likes of China and Russia, relationships that could lead to a new world. The Iraq war was met with fierce opposition from Russia and China, and also from France, not just for political reasons, but also because the US Administration back then had refused to share the Iraq “cake” and had sent a message of competition in a language of arrogance and monopoly. The Afghanistan war has been different not only because Obama has made sure to preserve his partnership with NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization), but also because he and his military leadership, and Petraeus in particular, have made sure to strengthen the bonds of partnerships in Afghanistan with China and Russia as well, under different arrangements and for various motives. This includes partnership in preventing the victory of Islamic extremism in Afghanistan, so that it may not spread to the five republics of Central Asia, in which Russia sees a threat in they were to fall into the hands of Islamic extremism. Indeed, Chechnya is not the only reason for Russia's fear of the growth of Islamic extremism and terrorism. China also has its own similar considerations. What Obama is saying about the Afghanistan war to his European, Russian and Chinese partners is: this is our war together. And what he is hinting at is that the benefits of victory in Afghanistan will be shared benefits. The question that must necessarily be asked now, after discovering this wealth of minerals in Afghanistan, is this: will Barack Obama be able to fulfill the promise of the impression he is leaving, based on partnership and on sharing, or will major US interests prevent him from doing so? Will they use his new language and ideology of embracing only to return to their old habits under new administrations and devour it all in the name of capitalism, or is Obama's promise a new promise likely to be implemented? Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine are milestones for testing Obama's promise. This is a test of walking the tightrope between US interests, based on fierce competition to ensure US superiority, and the method of engagement and partnership. Palestine does not rank as high as Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of natural resources, yet it remains a fundamental key to a safe environment in strategic locations rich in natural resources. Thus Obama is being tested on the promise of Palestine as in those of Afghanistan and Iraq. The library of Alexandria (Bibliotheca Alexandrina) under its director Ismail Serageldin this week held a conference for building the partnership announced by Barack Obama in his famous Cairo speech, under the title ““Initiatives in Education, Science and Culture towards Enhanced US-Muslim Countries Collaborations”. The importance of this conference exceeds these important plans and the conference has not been limited to these fields of growth of cooperation, but has also addressed political issues and emphasized the central and pivotal nature of the Palestinian issue in normalizing relations. Noteworthy is Ismail Serageldin's example in “holding Barack Obama's feet to the fire”, as in the American expression, to positively hold him to account for his promise and to help him fulfill it. He is an example of lucidly and cohesively causing change, so that the promise does not go by unmonitored and without benefitting anyone then fall chewed up between the jaws of demagogues and as ammunition in the hands of those who seek to obstruct US-Arab progress and partnership. It is a delicate and complex phase in international relations and partnerships in Iraq and Afghanistan, and through them Iran. It is also a phase that requires the utmost wisdom in taking positions and caution. Indeed, Iraq is under observation while waiting for US and international relations with Iran to be sorted out, and neighboring Arab countries should not abstain from participating and should “hold feet to the fire” wisely. In Afghanistan on the other hand, the history of the partnership includes the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the future of this partnership perhaps has bases of a different dimension. Indeed, the elements of deals to be struck stretch from Afghanistan to Iraq, up to Iran and perhaps Sudan, which is rich in oil sought by China. Moreover, Afghanistan is always a central point for the shaping of international relations and the industry of death which comes through the terrorism that launched the 9/11 attacks and changed the criteria of relations. Afghanistan, where the Soviet Union collapsed and from which Al-Qaeda was launched, stands today at a new threshold, due to the discovery or the revelation of a wealth of minerals which changes the criteria of partnerships.
