And Switzerland was, in fact, part of (and [charitably] aligned with) a few different empires in its day, to say the least possible about that. They are (and in modern history always were) dependent upon other nations for their trade routes which is determinate in their first-world status.
What argument are you trying to advance? That because Switzerland is first-world and landlocked - one of a few exceptions to the rule, surrounded by and allied with some of the planet's most powerful first-world nations - that Afghanistan could be expected to become one of the exceptions too?
The fact that the word "miracle" accompanies any explanation of Swiss economics ("The Swiss Miracle") should tell you that the odds of replicating their circumstances are long. Switzerland, Austria, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, the Czech Republic are all exceptions because they're unusual. They benefit immensely from being small populations with developed and friendly neighbors.
Afghanistan is thirty million people occupying a country whose borders are notoriously unsafe, whose regions are partly characterized by their ruling warlord, and whose chief product is agricultural. Who are Afghanistan's neighbors with coastal access? China, Iran, and Pakistan.
What are the prospects, as you build up industrialized resource development (mining, wells) in Afghanistan, for leveraging your coastal access rights with friends and borders like that? Coastal access is not just about exports, either.
Switzerland's geography, population of 8m, and history in Western Europe are hardly a useful roadmap for Afghanistan because the circumstances of each country are quite different.
What argument am I trying to advance? That your geographic determinism is flawed. There are a few first-world landlocked countries; there are many third-world countries with ocean access. Trying to say that Afghanistan is doomed because it's landlocked is unsupported by the available evidence.
Afghanistan is doomed, but it's doomed by the culture of the people (and, as you say, by their neighbors). If you took the same people and put them in Pakistan instead, would the ocean access really improve things? Maybe, a little, but not enough to fundamentally change the situation.
> there are many third-world countries with ocean access
Think about it like this - the vast majority of people that manage to improve their station in life are smart. Not everyone is smart, and not everyone who is smart improves their station in life. Being blessed with natural gifts doesn't determine a nation's fate, but it damn sure helps. Critically, the absence of those natural gifts puts a country at a severe disadvantage when trying to develop (in this case safe, economical access to global markets via maritime trade - a very concrete and measurable asset).
It is not the whole answer, sure. As my original comment and your replies have point out, there are exceptions. Those exceptions are by definition unusual. Some other factor(s) needs to be working overtime to offset the natural handicap. In the case of these exceptional first-world countries we're looking at, their handicap is balanced by having good prosperous neighbors that provide cheap, secure access to maritime trade routes. Afghanistan does not have these compensatory advantages.
Insofar as LoN is concerned, I'll leave that to you to contemplate the very origin of the designator "first world" and what being part of the right "club" means for a nation's prosperity. It is impossible to separate the landlocked exceptions' success from the compensating "gifts" of their neighborhood, as explained by the UN info below.
Check it out:
https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2008/06/16/landloc...
"High prices have hit many countries around the world, but landlocked developing countries bear an extra burden. Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Burundi, and other countries without a port pay more and wait longer for imported oil, food, and other goods. And they have an equally hard time exporting, with the result that they trade less and grow more slowly than their coastal neighbors."
https://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/developing_countries....
"The United Nations term "Landlocked Developing Countries" describes countries with serious constraints on the overall socio-economic development. Due to lack of territorial access to the sea and therefore remoteness and isolation from world markets causing high transit and transportation costs. These countries are among the poorest of the developing countries."
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:BAK96b...
"For LLDCs, their seaborne trade almost always must transit through other countries, mostly also developing countries—a process which involves dealing with cumbersome border-crossing procedures and inadequate transit transport infrastructure. Thus, although LLDCs already face other development challenges, they also face substantially increased costs for trade and transport because of their geographic location. Moreover, of the 32 LLDCs 17 are classified as least developed.
Their remoteness from major world markets is the principal reason why many LLDCs have had less success in mitigating consequences caused by their geographical handicap as compared to landlocked countries in Europe. Landlocked developed countries of Europe are surrounded by major developed markets and their seaborne trade accounts for a relatively small part of their external trade. Their export is mainly high value added products and their distance from seaports is comparatively short.
The distances involved in most cases of LLDCs are excessive. Kazakhstan has the longest distance from the sea (3,750 km), followed by Afghanistan, Chad, Niger, Zambia and Zimbabwe with distances from the nearest seacoast in excess of 2,000 km. Transit time for goods of LLDCs is extremely long because of their remoteness, difficult terrain, road and railway conditions and inefficiency of transit transport."
Make sense? This is not "my" geographic determinism. It's a pretty well-established way to interpret the world.
Adding to your point, it's a long way across China, and the border with Afghanistan is far away from populations and ports. I don't think it's great for trade, even though trade with China is certainly important.
Unless they think developing the resources and transportation will keep any trouble from crossing their borders.
I think it would be beneficial for the Afghans, assuming it wasn't too exploitive, more access to trade is usually a good thing, and exporting resources would generate net income.
Take Switzerland, for instance, or Austria. They were first-world countries before they were part of a trade federation. And, in fact, they were invited into the trade federation because they were first-world countries.
(Yes, Austria was part of an empire. No, Switzerland wasn't.)