You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Afghanistan
Holbrooke: US changing Afghan drug policy
2009-06-27
Pansies.
The U.S. has announced a new drug policy for opium-rich Afghanistan, saying it was phasing out funding for eradication efforts and using the money for drug interdiction and alternate crop programs instead.

The U.S. envoy for Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke, told The Associated Press on Saturday that eradication programs weren't working and were only driving farmers into the hands of the Taliban. "Eradication is a waste of money," Holbrooke said on the sidelines of a Group of Eight foreign ministers' meeting on Afghanistan, where he announced the policy shift and said it had been warmly received, particularly by the United Nations.

Afghanistan is the world's leading source of opium, cultivating 93 percent of the world's heroin-producing crop. The United Nations has estimated the Taliban and other Afghan militants made an estimated $50 million to $70 million off the opium and heroin trade last year.

In a report released earlier this week, the U.N. drug office said opium cultivation had dropped by 19 percent last year, but was still concentrated in southern provinces where the Taliban insurgency is strongest.

Holbrooke said the previous U.S. policy, which focused on eradication programs, hadn't reduced "by one dollar" the amount of money the Taliban earned off opium cultivation and production. "It might destroy some acreage," Holbrooke said. "But it just helped the Taliban."

"We're essentially phasing out our support for crop eradication and using the money to work on interdiction, rule of law alternate crops," he told the AP. At the same time, Washington is upgrading its support of agriculture programs. "That's the big change in our policies," he said. "This was widely accepted as the right thing to do."

Agriculture was among the issues taken up by the delegates at the G8 meeting in their Saturday session on Afghanistan, with participants saying in a draft version of the final statement that agricultural development was seen as "key to the future of Afghanistan and Pakistan as well as other countries in the region."

The statement called for "expanded agricultural cooperation that could lead to rural development, food security, employment growth, higher income levels, alternatives to poppy cultivation and ultimately lower tensions in the region."

Holbrooke said the international community wasn't trying to target Afghan farmers, just the Taliban militants who buy their crops. "The farmers are not our enemy, they're just growing a crop to make a living," he said. "It's the drug system. So the U.S. policy was driving people into the hands of the Taliban."

The shift in U.S. policy follows a steady decrease in the number of acres (hectares) destroyed by eradication programs. According to the U.N. report, opium poppy eradication reached a high in 2003, after the Taliban were ousted from power, with more than 50,000 acres (21,000 hectares) eradicated. In 2008, only 13,500 acres (5,500 hectares) were cut down compared to about 47,000 acres (19,000 hectares) in 2007.
Posted by:gorb

#4  I think Y'all are ignoring the price received, It seems far more likely the Opium growers will simply plant both crops, so if (Say) Wheat fails, Poppies will sustain the farm's expenses till next year.

It would be far better to simply pay a higher price than the Taliban can pay, and buy the crop.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2009-06-27 20:34  

#3  This is probably a good idea but needs to be followed through with other support. For example, an opium crop can be transported from the farm on the back of a couple of donkeys with enough cash payment to last until the next year's crop.

If alternative crops are to be grown, infrastructure improvements must be made such as roads, bridges, grain storage, etc. A farmer will need to be able to harvest that crop and get it to market in sufficient quantity to earn a living. It is going to take several truck loads of wheat or maize to bring in the same amount of cash that a couple of donkey loads of opium do.

That implies the need for trucks, roads and bridges that will carry trucks, and a place to which the crop is brought for sale.

So any plan to convert the agriculture there to other crops will require a large investment in the infrastructure required to actually produce such crops on a scale where they can actually compete with opium as a viable subsistence crop for the farmers. Otherwise are are simply urinating upwind.
Posted by: crosspatch   2009-06-27 20:13  

#2  So, how well has interdiction worked in comparison to eradication elsewhere?
Posted by: Richard of Oregon   2009-06-27 11:58  

#1  "Elimination of opium production has severely hampered the operational capabilities of the Taliban, depriving them of the money they need to overcome NATO soldiers. By restoring their income from the drug trade, we hope that they will be able to maintain their struggle against western forces."
Posted by: Anonymoose   2009-06-27 11:20  

00:00