Defeating the Taliban by Treating the World's Sick: A New Approach to the Afghan Poppy Trade

Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

• Share
• Print View
• Comments

Defense Secretary Robert Gates' statement last week that the U.S. intends to send more combat forces to Afghanistan in 2009 is further evidence that the Taliban remains a formidable foe. One of the major sources of income for the Taliban, and a primary source of instability for the Afghan Government is the poppy trade, which supplies the majority of the world's heroin demand. Right now, the inflexible policies of the U.S. and the International Narcotics Control Board are hurting hampering efforts to find practical solutions to the poppy problem. If the U.S. and international community on the in the country ground are to weaken the Taliban, they must address the issue of the poppy trade and the associated corruption in a new and sophisticated way.

Currently, the U.S. policy of poppy eradication in Afghanistan is futile, unimaginative and fails to take into account the economic needs of the Afghan population. It also overlooks a creative, ethical and sustainable solution to the problem of the opium trade in Afghanistan. Rather than trying to stomp out poppy production by force, the U.S. should be working with international partners to establish a framework to assist Afghan farmers in selling their poppy crops to organizations that can use them to make medicines for those in the developing world in need of palliative care.

The World Health Organization (WHO), doctors and NGOs around the developing world have noted repeatedly the shortage of morphine as a major obstacle to providing widespread palliative care. In 2002, the WHO published "Assuring Availability of Opioid Analgesics for Palliative Care," acknowledging the limited access to opiates in the developing world. In March of 2003, the International Narcotics Control Board Annual Report concluded that "essential narcotic drugs used for medical purposes are insufficiently available in many countries around the world."

Uganda, and a few other countries have attempted, with success, to find creative ways to make morphine more readily available, and the results have been highly beneficial to people suffering from illness and pain. Concerns about abuse of opiates where they have been made available have proven unfounded, and there is no reason why these drugs should not be made available in the same way that they are in more developed countries. In large part, the refusal to consider legitimate export or even stockpiling of poppy crops under the supervision of international organizations has been the result of the "war on drugs" waged by the U.S. that has stifled creative and productive thinking within organizations like the INCB.

Because of these ideological stumbling blocks and the lack of comprehensive international cooperation on the issue, U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan have not seized the opportunity to direct the sale of Afghan poppies for the production of these desperately needed drugs. Instead, they have attempted, and failed, to eradicate poppy production through a series of misguided strategies. They've seized poppy fields by force, angering the local population. They've offered cash rewards to poppy farmers who agreed to plow under their crops. This strategy led to a new crop of poppy farmers, as those growing food destroyed their crops and planted poppies in order to collect the reward for then destroying them. Intimidation, force, attempted alliances and battles with local drug lords have failed to curb poppy production, which is currently at record levels. The reality is that, as long as farmers need to earn a living, and as long as a market exists for poppies, poppy farming will be a fact of life in Afghanistan.

The reason that poppy farming is such a concern in Afghanistan is that the Taliban and other drug lords control the sale of poppies to international opium traders. The sale of the poppies for the creation of illegal drugs funds the Taliban and other rogue groups operating in Afghanistan, and thus enables them to fight U.S. and international forces.

The Afghan farmers, however, have no personal interest in the ultimate destination of their poppies. Rather than destroying these people's livelihood, the U.S. military should work with local and international groups to protect farmers from Taliban and drug lord enforcers, and secure the purchase of poppy crops at generous prices. Right now, poppy farmers derive protection and their livelihood from those running the illicit drug trade. But they also fear the drug lords and resent the Taliban. What they want is stability, safety, and an income. The U.S. and its allies can deliver these conditions and should make it their priority to secure these things for the farmers.

In recent years, the Gates Foundation and other international donor organizations have focused on health crises in the developing world and made an enormous amount of funding available for promising programs aimed at preventing, curing and treating widespread illnesses. NGOs dedicated to providing palliative care and assisting those with cancer, HIV, AIDS and other painful conditions are operating to the best of their ability given the lack of available drugs, throughout the developing world. This means that the funding to buy the poppy crops of Afghan farmers and subsidize the manufacture and distribution of morphine for use in the developing world is available, and the groups to distribute the drugs and associated care are in place.

What is missing in this picture is leadership. The U.S. and international forces should work together with the WHO, the INCB, and various governments, NGOs and healthcare providers to facilitate the sale of the poppy crops to organizations making and distributing morphine in the developing world. Through creative programs, strategies and partnerships, the U.S. and international forces have the opportunity to undermine the illicit drug trade in Afghanistan while helping the economy of that fragile country and providing desperately-needed resources to sick people who deserve basic palliative care. It's time for the U.S. to seize this moment for leadership and put in place policies that will not only strengthen regional security but also do enormous good for suffering people.

Comments

[michaelescher]

Regardless if you agree or not with Ms. Gans' idea, one thing that we should all recognize is that the "war on drugs" isn't working and never has worked. It is time that we all acknowledge this and try new ways of dealing with drugs, including Ms. Gans' idea and the possibility of de-criminalization in the US. We have filled our prisons with non-violent offenders, many of whom are the end users who for the most part are doing nothing but hurting themselves. If their drug of choice was alcohol or nicotine we would leave them in peace, or offer them treatment. Why should we or our government discriminate between self destructive behaviors?

Most, if not all of the negative aspects of opiate abuse stems from it being driven underground. In countries that have decriminalized its use, no one robs to get their fix and many users hold down jobs and are contributing members of society. Our system is broken. We destroy lives by locking people up for a lifestyle choice, spend billions of dollars keeping them there and drive up drug prices on the street with "drug eradication" programs.

By any measure this 'war on drugs" is a failure and we need to take a new direction.

[JNV]

Terrific idea. Occupy and then try buying their friendship. Seems to be working in Iraq.

[Durango]

First off, I would be willing to bet that a good percentage of attacks on NATO forces by insurgents are not coming from the Taliban but are from poppy growers and opium producers seeking to protect their product.

Either the Americans can't tell the Taliban from the growers (very likely) or they seek to inflate the body count by including non Taliban casaulties (also likely)or the growers seek the help and protection of the Taliban as: a friend of my enemy is my friend.

In addition it is not just the Taliban who is active in the drug trade, much of the government or local war lords (US allies) are involved as well.

Then you take the fact that the Bush Administration could not find a sensible strategy to save their lives and you have built up the certainty for a catastrophe in Afghanistan.

Your average Afghan farmer couldn't care less about America's War on Drugs or the morality of growing poppies. (actually that might not be the case. Opium addiction is anti Islamic). They simply are looking for a way to stay alive. And the economics of opium productionmake sense in that poor war torn country.

Without a working economy that takes into consideration the needs of the Afghanis a solution will never be found. Why not make Afghanistan the supplier of the worlds legitimate opiate supply?

Something new needs to take place. The Afghan people deserve better from the world.

[alkamm]

For every complex problem there's a simple answer. That answer is wrong, according to Mark Twain.

The worst we could do by buying all the opium in Afghanistan is to inflate the price and subsidize further expansion of poppy growing. Still, we'd be channelling a lot of palliation to those who could use it for relief from disease rather than those who just use it for recreation. The use of opiates, however, is a religious issue, a crusade that's part of the wildly unsuccessful War on Drugs.

The best we'd do is to give money directly to the growers rather than seeing our funds channelled through so many layers of middlemen in the underground trafficking of opium.

The British controlled the diamond trade by buying up all diamonds in Africa and elsewhere. Their efforts led to a cartel that has kept diamonds at an artificially high price. Perhaps we could use the same successful strategy to inflate the price of opiates and make some of the money middlemen currently extract from the trade. This is the kind of tax and spend that could prove really useful.

Rather than investing in big boats, expensive cars, and beach front property like current drug middlemen, our government could be trusted to dole out opiates to those that need them, and to destroy what's left. This could be the greatest advance in the war on drugs, but it's simplicity will be attacked from those reactionaries who thrive on unending wars and rumors of wars.

[Golux]

Thanks for this innovative approach to the two sets of problems. Is there any support for this kind of idea among the Presidential candidates? If what we need is leadership, we are not going to get any from the current administration!

[Gma11]

First things first!! This is the opening paragraph from Bill Moyers' Journal (PBS) Friday evening:

"The head of the United Nations' world food program says "a perfect storm" is hitting hungry people around the globe. The cost of food is soaring. Food riots have broken out in Indonesia, Pakistan, and Egypt, where the price of bread rose 10 times in a week. Afghanistan has asked for urgent help. Forty countries are judged to be at risk of serious hunger, or already suffering from it."

[Golux]

Certainly starvation is a problem. But your comment suggests that if we changed to Ms. Gans' suggestion, there would be less food being grown. This is a fallacy as what she argues is going on suggests that the food is already not being grown- it is being plowed under to grow poppies (even if just to plow them under again for the US). Ms Gans' argument makes sense to me because it is inherently realistic. It does not wish that farmers would do the "right" thing, it responds to the facts on the ground and seeks the best possible outcome.

[Gma11]

I was NOT making the connection you implied.

My experience is not in Afghanistan. It's with our attempts to do the same thing in Bolivia (only with coca). My husband and I have been involved in work there for over two decades.

[phasechange]

Your argument is nonsensical from your initial premise that the Taliban solely is behind increased poppy production. How can you ignore the fact that poppy production was nearly eradicated when the Taliban was in power and surged to record levels after the US intervened? Why has drug production increased in many US-managed counter-insurgency operations (SE Asia, Colombia, Afghanistan)? Why are you willing to repeat this highly-poiticized mantra that the forces that oppose US intervention are the demons behind drug abuse (Venezuela)? Why do you ignore documented evidence that drug profits have supported clandestine US interventions (Italy, Serbia)? Without a better understanding of the complexities behind drug cartel operations your solution is not only unworkable it enhances retrograde US policy.

[OutsideLookingIn]

"They've offered cash rewards to poppy farmers who agreed to plow under their crops. This strategy led to a new crop of poppy farmers, as those growing food destroyed their crops and planted poppies in order to collect the reward for then destroying them."

"the U.S. military should work with local and international groups to protect farmers from Taliban and drug lord enforcers, and secure the purchase of poppy crops at generous prices."

Either way food crops go under the plough.

Wouldn't it be better to purchase food crops at generous prices?

[ArchAngel]

It is well researched and documented that insurrections, revolutions, and the like are all due to the lack of a stable viable economy for the majority. It has absolutely nothing to do with ideology - left, right, religion, etc.

People with land, homes, jobs, families, and education do not have the time or inclination to go out and kill.

[ResidentChimp]

You should try your ideas on some hood in an inner city. Then you could think bigger.

[PiratePrentiss]

You guys right wing guys sure are good at losing wars. Maybe you should call it quits, Mr Drug Warrior. They failed strategy of the War on Drugs only exacerbates problems, and insures that drug-related crime (mostly turf wars between dealers) stays at high levels.

One more question. You always come across as such a tough guy RC. Why are you so afraid of everything? Maybe you should get some therapy

[Steamboater]

There's a major problem however. As long as opium and it's derivatives are illegal to use, the Taliban and others who buy from Afghan farmers via druglords will only be able to offer more money to the farmers. Countries that want opium for medical use will never agree to pay as much as the taliban will be able to offer, and the bottom line for these farmers is money. That's the truth and no mention of it was made in Gans' article. Offer a farmer e.g., $300.00 as opposed to $150.00 and the temptation is there. For decades and longer, Afghan farmers have shown a distaste for ethics. If Gans thinks they're all of a sudden going to have a conscience about the tragedies their crops produce world-wide, she's mistaken.

[Robert59]

You can pay now or pay later. I'm an advocate for buying all the poppy those farmers produce. Not only will the warlords lose their cash cow, the farmers are now beholden to the government, not the warlord.

Purchasing opium is much cheaper than fighting a war.

[LeftLeanWing]

the more that taliban has to pay for the poppies then the less money they will have for other purposes. wtih all of the money we spent on the 'War On Drugs' this seems like a viable alternative.

[FearlessFreep]

So the US should also pay the farmers a subsidy in addition to the market price, as part of the foreign aid to Afghanistan, to match what the Taliban offers.

[oldpotsmuggler]

Without allowing legalized opiate use in the rich countries, the cancer, AIDS, etc. patients of the third world will use part of their med allotment for the intended purpose of pain alleviation, and will divert the rest into the black market to get money to feed themselves and their families.

We would still be left with the net affect of decreasing the money flow to the Taliban, but that would also happen if we faced the situation like intelligent adults, and stopped ignoring a whole world of very readily forseeable reactions and comnsequences.

In other words, why don't we grow up, legalize everything, and create regulations that favor drug crop farming by needy farmers in poor countries?

[lotusfalls]

Well written article. Tom Robbin's book 'Villa Incognito' portrays men in Laos illegally selling purified opium to underground Hospices so people may die in peace and relative comfort, rather than the agonizing, painful deaths that happen everyday in the world's most "advanced" medical centers.

Thanks for writing this.

[fightorleave2]

We should stop with the inane war on drugs, and then we should stop telling Afghani farmers what they should or shouldn't grow.

[Notapathetic]

This another crazy deal in which the U.S. is spending a hundred billion to fight a problem that they could handle with termination for 10% of the cost.

We could simply BUY at wholesale the entire production of poppies for the entire season for the same price that the drug lords are paying. That takes care of the problem.

Of course that is much too simple for the cowboys who are running this show.

[mbaty]

Why should we carry our false "war on drugs" to other countries anyway? The fact is, people need to live--shelter, food, clothing, medicine, all the necessities, and guess what? Those all take money. This is about survival, not about pushing opiates. Our failed policies should not affect those people if we aren't going to replace them with stability. Then again, maybe stability isn't what our government wants--after all, declaring a "war" on something only sets it up as an archnemesis, keeping it in place as an egoic division of us vs. them. Maybe that's why we have the "war on terror"--to keep 'terror' going as an external, separate threat, rather than a symptom of something within us that we haven't been willing to look at. As long as the egoic separation ideology is in place, we can continue to pretend like the same old methods are working--and that means that the same old people are profiting from the continued chaos.

[iratior]

Ms. Gans, thank you for writing a very enlightening article and thanks to Huffington Post for placing it on the internet. What leaves me stupefied is the sheer multi-dimensionality of how obnoxious the planet's ruling elite (the Bush administration, the GOP, etc.) is: it's hard to tell where the war on drugs leaves off and becomes a war on the sick, a war on the poor, and a war on the third world. Doctors are afraid to prescribe too much pain medication, for fear that, patient confidentiality be damned, drug control boards will find out about it and get on their case. Sometimes I think the reason for the war on drugs is that it's easy to blame economic failures on drug addiction, rather than on an impossibly tight job market. The ruling elite can say to people, "Well, if you weren't addicted to drugs, you could get a job."