Afghanistan’s Salvation: Churchill, Manitoba?

Thus goes an almost-interesting idea from Michael Berk in Canada’s Financial Post.

Coincidentally, one such sensible strategy to build our presence in the Arctic would do more than open the door to untold billions in trade between Canada and the rapidly emerging economies of Eurasia. It would also provide a clear route — through Churchill, Man. — for the integration of Afghanistan and the rest of Central Asia into the global economy. That economic integration would do more to stabilize the region than Canadian forces ever can.

The Churchill-to-Kandahar route is not an easy one to see at first glance, but each leg of the journey makes sense locally and fits into a global context that can result in the greatest geopolitical and economic advance of the 21st century.

Churchill is Canada’s only Arctic deep-water seaport; a crucial shipping point for goods between North America, Europe and Asia. As part of an Arctic Bridge, Churchill is ready for its role on the global stage. Connecting to Murmansk, an ice-free seaport in the extreme northwest of Russia, Churchill could become an end point for the shortest shipping route between North America and rapidly developing Eurasian markets, such as Russia, China and India. Shipping via the Churchill-to-Murmansk Arctic Bridge is nine days faster than the St. Lawrence Seaway passage– a huge competitive advantage.

Indeed it is. The trick is, China already has enormous ports along its coast. As does India. But Afghanistan? While the south is certainly too unstable right now to support a massive infrastructure development project, would it really make sense to ship goods 2,800 miles from Kandahar to Murmansk, then another 5,000+ miles from Murmansk to Churchill?

There is no reason for this route to exist at all. From Kandahar to anywhere north, good would have to traverse either Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan, then all of Russia, then a long ocean route to Canada, then another long land route to any markets. Afghanistan—in fact, all of Central Asia—has a better option:

Look down in the lower left for the two newest ports serving South Asia.

As our own Kayumars Turkestani pointed out many months ago:

Both Iran and Pakistan have developed strategies to create strong economic and transport ties with Central Asia and beyond. Anchoring these strategies are two new seaports: Gwadar in Pakistan and Chabahar in Iran. Spreading out from these ports are existing or planned transportation infrastructure that leads into their respective country’s economic center and importantly for Central Asia, northwards. Both ports are well towards becoming fully operable and are offering generous incentives for companies and governments to do business in their ports. However, serious political, economic and logistical problems remain. For Central Asia one of these two ports, or indeed both, will likely become important links to world markets.

This isn’t to minimize the challenges in exporting anything from Afghanistan. The infrastructure simply isn’t there, although now that the U.S. has secured access to Termez, Uzbekistan as a supply point, it is possible that, eventually, the rail and highway links necessary for Afghanistan to ship north might one day exist. But going all the way to Murmansk is simply ridiculous, when a far shorter route exists to the south.

Indeed, Iran will most likely be Afghanistan’s commercial salvation, not Canada. It is simply batty to think there is any commercial desire to ship good across all of Central Asia, then all of Russia, just to arrive at an out-of-the-way port on the Hudson Bay. Now Churchill might be a huge deal as a transit route between Europe and Canada—that’s certainly possible, especially given the time savings compared with other ports in Canada. But Afghanistan just has better options.

This post was written by...

Joshua Foust – author of 1771 posts on Registan.net.

Joshua Foust is a Fellow at the American Security Project and the author of Afghanistan Journal: Selections from Registan.net. His research focuses primarily on Central and South Asia. Joshua is a correspondent for The Atlantic and a columnist for PBS Need to Know. Joshua appears regularly on the BBC World News, Aljazeera, and international public radio. Joshua is also a regular contributor to Foreign Policy’s AfPak Channel, and his writing has appeared in the New York Times, Reuters, and the Christian Science Monitor. Follow him on twitter: @joshuafoust