Destroying poppies isn't path to Afghan stability

Posted: February 02, 2007

NATO is fighting a war to eradicate opium from Afghanistan. Western governments are spending hundreds of millions of dollars bulldozing poppy fields, building up counternarcotics squads, and financing alternative crops. Chemical spraying may begin as early as this spring.

Opium exports account for somewhere between one-third and two-thirds of the country's gross domestic product, depending on whose statistics you believe. The biggest producers are in the southern provinces, where the Taliban is at its strongest, and no wonder: Every time a poppy field is destroyed, a poor person becomes poorer - and more likely to support the Taliban against the Western forces who wrecked his crops. Yet little changes: The amount of land dedicated to poppy production grew last year by more than 60 percent.

Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, has called opium a "cancer" worse than terrorism - and crop-spraying may make things worse. Not only will it cause environmental and health damage, but also it will feel to the local population like a military attack, as Western planes drop poisonous chemicals from the sky.

Most depressing is that the Afghan poppy crisis doesn't have to exist at all. Look at the history of Turkey. Turkey, too, had a long tradition of poppy cultivation. Turkey, too, worried that poppy eradication could "bring down the government." Turkey was identified as the main source of the heroin sold in the West. Just like in Afghanistan, a ban was tried, and it failed.

As a result, in 1974 the Turks, with American and U.N. support, began licensing poppy cultivation for the purpose of producing morphine, codeine and other legal opiates. Legal factories were built to replace the illegal ones. Farmers registered to grow poppies, and they paid taxes. You couldn't tell that from the latest White House drug strategy report - which devotes several pages to Afghanistan but doesn't mention Turkey - but the U.S. government still supports the Turkish program, even requiring U.S. drug companies to purchase 80 percent of what the legal documents euphemistically refer to as "narcotic raw materials" from the two traditional producers, Turkey and India.

Why not add Afghanistan to this list? The only good arguments against doing so - as opposed to the silly, politically correct "just say no" arguments - are technical: that the same weak or nonexistent bureaucracy will be no better at licensing poppy fields than it has been at destroying them, or that some of the raw material will still fall into the hands of the drug cartels. Yet some of these issues can be resolved, by building processing factories at the local level and working within local power structures. Even if the program succeeds in stopping only half of the drug trade, a huge chunk of Afghanistan's economy will still emerge from the gray market; the power of the drug barons will be reduced; and, most important, Western money will have been visibly spent helping Afghan farmers survive, instead of destroying their livelihoods.

Besides, things really could get worse. It isn't so hard to imagine, two or three years down the line, yet another emergency presidential speech, calling for a "surge" of troops to southern Afghanistan - where impoverished villagers, having turned against the West, are joining the Taliban in droves. Before we get there, maybe it's worth letting some legal poppies bloom.

Anne Applebaum is a columnist for the Washington Post.

Contact Anne Applebaum at applebaumanne@washpost.com.

comments powered by Disqus
|
|
|
|
|