Afghanistan is considered rich in natural resources among other countries. It is said that the country has approximately one trillion dollars worth of natural resource reserves. Over the years, it has been continuously reiterated that if the government of Afghanistan can extract these reserves and use the money to strengthen the economy, Afghanistan’s economy will rapidly improve. This improvement would extend to the well-being of its citizens, propelling the country into a rapid development trajectory, and transforming it into an influential player in the world. It’s not expected that ordinary citizens, unfamiliar with the complexities of the economic world and the prerequisites of development, would engage in scientific discourse or provide flawless comprehensive views.

However, it’s peculiar that even national experts in the field of development and economy sometimes believe that extracting natural resources and utilizing them will work like a miracle, potentially elevating the country’s economy and welfare within a few years. Following this common belief, the Taliban, since their return to power, have focused primarily on mining and have entered into contracts in this regard with various foreign companies. Certainly, in the absence of transparency in the Taliban’s operations, it is unclear how the funds acquired from this endeavor are managed and allocated. Recently, the George W. Bush Institute claimed that the Taliban, in cooperation with some regional countries, are engaged in plundering Afghanistan’s mines. Regardless of the calamity the Taliban bring upon Afghanistan’s mines and natural reserves, it’s necessary to address the question: does the utilization of Afghanistan’s natural resources indeed play a crucial role in improving the country’s economy and contributing to development?

The most important point in this regard is that merely possessing natural resources and reserves cannot bring about a significant transformation in a country’s economy. We currently have examples of countries that are much richer in natural resources than Afghanistan, yet due to corruption, incompetence of officials, and the mafia-like behavior of intermediaries with divine wealth, the existence of natural resources has not helped them much but rather caused numerous other problems. Conversely, many advanced countries in the world are absolutely poor in terms of natural resources, yet their leaders have found ways, through scientific management and rational planning, not only to compensate for the absolute poverty in terms of natural resources but also to elevate themselves to the highest levels in terms of industry and development. The central point is that progress and advancement, on the one hand, depend on developments and progress in other areas of life, and on the other hand, they rely on the scientific rationality of officials and their proper understanding of the complexities and nuances of economic relationships.

Which country considered best in terms of economic success

It’s worth mentioning Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist and one of the leaders of the Chicago School of Economics, in this context. In response to a question about which country he considered the best in terms of economic success and development, he published an article in The New York Times. According to him, the best country in this regard is Taiwan because it lacks natural resources, all of its land is rocky and unsuitable for cultivation, and it is surrounded by the sea, with storm waves coming at it from all sides. Taiwan needs to import everything, even sand and gravel, and it must rely on other countries for these resources. Despite all these challenges, it’s astonishing that a country facing such daunting hurdles is the fourth-largest financial reserve holder globally. According to Friedman, the remarkable success of Taiwan lies in its reliance on the capacity, workforce, and initiative of its people, rather than the pursuit of mines and natural riches. Human resources are inexhaustible and renewable.

One of the golden points in Friedman’s remarks in the article he penned for The New York Times is that the progress of countries in the twenty-first century can be measured by how successful they are in educating effective educators, providing useful education and upbringing for their children, and strengthening diligence and seriousness in them, as well as investing in an appropriate educational system. The results achieved through education and training determine the power and wealth of nations, not the money obtained through the sale of natural resources such as oil, diamonds, and gold.

Friedman concludes his essay by stating, “It’s good for a country to have oil, gas, and diamonds, but if these riches are not managed properly or are not spent to develop the knowledge and skills of the country’s citizens, they will not bring much benefit.”

The purpose of quoting one of the foremost economists of our time is to clarify that contrary to the propaganda the Taliban have propagated, the solution to eradicating poverty and generating wealth for a country is not possessing natural resources and underground riches. Freedom from poverty and prosperity requires precise and long-term scientific planning. A government that, through its misguided policies, creates conditions conducive to the flight of young and skilled labor to other countries should by no means expect miracles to happen. A regime that is preoccupied with expelling its citizens and, with suffocating restrictions, driving them to foreign lands, if it believes that it can help strengthen the economy by extracting and selling underground resources, is making a fatal mistake.

How a nation can achieve economic development when it deprives its people from education

Under the shadow of the Taliban regime, education is in its worst state, which can be described as a state of decay. Not only has this regime deprived half of the society of acquiring sufficient literacy, but by ideologicalizing the education system, it has severely restricted access to modern and useful education. Many male students and students have been prevented from continuing their education. When the Taliban speak of the necessity of improving the country’s economy, they blatantly lie. How can you, by employing medieval teachings restricting men and women and depriving them of awareness of the latest human achievements in various fields, improve a country’s economy?

Moreover, the lack of transparency mechanisms in the extraction and utilization of underground resources, and the absence of institutions to oversee how the money obtained is spent, are the most significant obstacles to the proper and rational use of the funds derived from these resources. Nigeria is one of the countries rich in oil resources and also has vast fertile land, but in practice, natural riches have not only failed to save this country from poverty and misery, but have also led to the strengthening of the mafia economy and terrifying administrative corruption at various levels of government, and has somehow increased the presence of criminal militias in the country. According to the authors of the book “Why Nations Fail,” the economic backwardness and progress of countries primarily depend on the presence of powerful inclusive institutions. This is while the Taliban, through monopolizing power and staunch opposition to democratic institutions, have endeavored to weaken and even destroy institutions that were semi-functional in the past.

No noticeable change in the Afghan economic situation despite extraction of mineral resources 

According to reports from reputable international organizations, the Taliban have so far earned billions of dollars from the extraction and sale of Afghanistan’s natural resources. However, there has been no noticeable change in the economic situation of citizens. If it were not for the aid sent to Afghanistan by the United States and its allies weekly, the country’s already weak economy would likely collapse rapidly. Currently, more than half of Afghanistan’s population relies on foreign aid, and if this aid is not provided, a humanitarian catastrophe will occur, and some individuals may die of starvation.

The Taliban are using the proceeds from the sale of mines and underground resources to strengthen and equip their military forces as much as possible and also use this money for their purposes. The Taliban’s handling of the wealth obtained through the sale of underground resources or other means is akin to seizing war booty in medieval wars and thus they do not consider themselves accountable. It is not inappropriate that in the literature of this group, the occupation of various cities of the country is called “conquest,” and they use the same terms that were prevalent in defining the relations between empires in the Middle Ages. The Taliban rule with a modern foreign government and, by dealing with national assets in a medieval manner, are reducing the chances of economic progress and human development in the country more than ever. Those who have recently descended from the mountains and villages to the cities and do not understand the complex economic mechanism believe that by collecting tithes, alms, taxes, and additional levies from the people, they can achieve economic prosperity. However, these actions not only do not contribute to improving the economy at inappropriate times and places but also severely damage it. Economic progress requires a comprehensive plan and transformation and advancement in other areas. One of the prerequisites for economic transformation is the flourishing of creative forces in all fields. (HashteSubhDaily)

Members of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s far-right coalition are opposed to a prisoner swap deal with Hamas. Benny Gantz, a member of the war cabinet, is pushing for the rescue of Israeli hostages. Both sides threaten to bring down Netanyahu’s government.

Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, far-right ministers in Netanyahu’s coalition, oppose the deal with Hamas and the shelving of the Rafah operation. The two ministers allegedly threatened Netanyahu in meetings that they would bring down the government if there was no attack on Rafah.

Finance Minister Smotrich issued a statement confirming the claim. He said that the government headed by Netanyahu has no right to exist if it does not occupy Rafah.

In a video message posted on his social media account, Smotrich argued that the Netanyahu-led government will have no right to exist if it waves the white flag and abandons its plan to occupy Rafah.

Smotrich expressed his opposition to any deal with Hamas that would involve the return of Israeli prisoners held in Gaza in exchange for the release of Palestinians held in Israel, describing such an agreement as “a humiliating surrender to the Nazis”.

The reason for Smotrich and Ben-Gvir’s outburst against Netanyahu is said to be the progress of the ceasefire.

If the parties of Ben-Gvir, leader of the Jewish Power Party, and Smotrich, leader of the Religious Zionism Party, withdraw from the government, the coalition that has been in power in Israel since December 2022 will fall.

Responding to Smotrich’s comments, Benny Gantz, a member of Israel’s war cabinet, said: “The Rafah incursion is important in the long-term fight against Hamas, but the return of the prisoners abandoned by the government to their homes is urgent and much more important.

Gantz said that if an agreement is reached with the support of Israel’s security services that does not require an end to the war, but ministers in the government prevent it, the government will have no right to exist.

The War Cabinet consists of 5 people (3 members and 2 observers), including Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, former Chiefs of Staff Benny Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot.

The cabinet was formed after Netanyahu and opposition National Unity Party leader Benny Gantz agreed to form an “emergency government” on 11 October.

Gantz’s withdrawal from the war cabinet does not bring down the Israeli government, but it is said to increase international reservations about the legitimacy of the war.

The UK has pledged to add a further £75 billion to its defence budget over the next six years, taking spending well above the Nato target and putting pressure on its European allies to follow suit.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said during a visit to Poland on Tuesday that the new package was ‘the biggest boost to our national defence for a generation’, while his office argued that it ‘sets a new standard for other major European Nato economies to follow’.

The move will enable the UK to spend the equivalent of 2.5 per cent of GDP on defence by the end of the decade.

Speaking at a press conference with NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg, Sunak argued that now was not the time for complacency, saying: “We cannot continue to worry about what price America will pay or what burden America will bear if we are not willing to make sacrifices for our own security.”

The pledge, which Sunak insisted would not require budget cuts or tax rises, would increase Britain’s annual defence spending to £87 billion by 2030-31.

“A game changer for European security”

“If all NATO countries spent at least 2.5 per cent of their GDP on defence, our collective budget would increase by more than £140 billion,” the prime minister’s office said in a statement accompanying Sunak’s announcement.

London said the new package would include an extra £10 billion investment in munitions production over the next decade and radical reforms to Britain’s defence procurement procedures. It will also create a new ‘Defence Innovation Agency’ to boost military research and development.

“Today is a turning point for European security and an important moment for British defence,” said Sunak.

Responding to Sunak’s announcement, Labour’s shadow defence secretary John Healey said his party would “like to see a fully funded plan” to reach 2.5 per cent, but that “the Conservatives have shown time and again that they cannot be trusted on defence and we will be looking closely at the details of their announcement”.

Sunak urges Europeans to spend more

After Warsaw, he travelled to Berlin and met Chancellor Olaf Scholz.

Rishi Sunak told European countries that they must increase their defence spending to ensure that the United States remains committed to NATO in the future.

The prime minister said the continent must take more responsibility for its defence in an environment where Donald Trump is running for a second term in the White House.

Speaking with Scholz in Berlin, Sunak said US presidents have “reasonably” always demanded that Europe spend more on defence.

He argued that European countries could not ask the US to fund the continent’s security unless they were “prepared to sacrifice” themselves.

The Prime Minister noted that it was important for Europe to show that it was taking on more of the burden ‘to keep the United States committed to NATO’.

British helicopters heading to Russian border for NATO exercises

NATO is planning a training exercise in Finland on Friday in an area close to the Russian border.

The UK is taking part in the exercises. A squadron of nine British Army Apache attack helicopters, worth £40 million each, are heading to Finland to take part in what has been described as ‘the biggest Nato exercise since the Cold War’.

After Finland, four Wildcat reconnaissance helicopters and two RAF Chinook support helicopters will travel to Estonia, where they will remain for an extended period.

The exercise in Finland involving Apache attack helicopters is called ‘Arrow’, while the exercise in Estonia involving all three types of helicopter is called ‘Swift Response’.

The exercises are part of Steadfast Defender 24, which tests NATO’s plans to strengthen its defences in Europe against an “imminent enemy”.

The exercises involve 90,000 troops from 32 members of the military alliance, as well as around 20,000 British personnel.