Opium windfall fuels Afghan insurgents: U.N.

[UpInArms]

Source: Reuters

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Profits from opium cultivation are fuelling the insurgency in Afghanistan, the United Nations said on Friday, in a new call on NATO to crack down on the country's burgeoning drugs trade.

Releasing the final draft of its 2007 Afghan opium survey which in August already showed a surge in production, the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) said the total export value of opiates in Afghanistan stood at about $4 billion.

Farmers saw around a quarter of that total, while district officials took a percentage through a levy on the crops. The rest was shared among insurgents, warlords and drugs traffickers, it said.

"The potential windfall for criminals, insurgents and terrorists is staggering and runs into the hundreds of millions of dollars," UNODC Executive Director Antonio Maria Costa said in a statement released in Brussels.

"Since drugs are funding the insurgency, NATO has a self-interest in supporting Afghan forces in destroying drugs labs, markets and convoys. Destroy the drug trade and you cut off the Taliban's main funding source."

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL1631972220071116

---

How Washington Funded the Taliban

The United States has made common cause with an assortment of dubious regimes around the world to wage the war on drugs. Perhaps the most shocking example was Washington's decision in May 2001 to financially reward Afghanistan's infamous Taliban government for its edict ordering a halt to the cultivation of opium poppies.

When the Taliban implemented a ban on opium cultivation in early 2001, U.S. officials were most complimentary. James P. Callahan, director of Asian Affairs for the State Department's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, uncritically relayed the alleged accounts of Afghan farmers that "the Taliban used a system of consensus-building" to develop and carry out the edict. That characterization was more than a little suspect because the Taliban was not known for pursuing consensus in other aspects of its rule. Columnist Robert Scheer was justifiably scathing in his criticism of the U.S. response. "That a totalitarian country can effectively crack down on its farmers is not surprising," Sheer noted, but he considered it "grotesque" for a U.S. official to describe the drug-crop crackdown in such benign terms.

Yet the Bush administration did more than praise the Taliban's proclaimed ban of opium cultivation. In mid-May, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a $43 million grant to Afghanistan in addition to the humanitarian aid the United States had long been providing to agencies assisting Afghan refugees. Given Callahan's comment, there was little doubt that the new stipend was a reward for Kabul's anti-drug efforts. That $43 million grant needs to be placed in context. Afghanistan's estimated gross domestic product was a mere $2 billion. The equivalent financial impact on the U.S. economy would have required an infusion of $215 billion. In other words, $43 million was very serious money to Afghanistan's theocratic masters.

To make matters worse, U.S. officials were naive to take the Taliban edict at face value. The much-touted crackdown on opium poppy cultivation appears to have been little more than an illusion. Despite U.S. and UN reports that the Taliban had virtually wiped out the poppy crop in 2000-2001, authorities in neighboring Tajikistan reported that the amounts coming across the border were actually increasing. In reality, the Taliban gave its order to halt cultivation merely to drive up the price of opium the regime had already stockpiled.

Even if the Taliban had tried to stem cultivation for honest reasons, U.S. cooperation with that regime should have been morally repugnant. Among other outrages, the Taliban government prohibited the education of girls, tortured and executed political critics, and required non-Muslims to wear distinctive clothing--a practice eerily reminiscent of Nazi Germany's requirement that Jews display the Star of David on their clothing. Yet U.S. officials deemed none of that to be a bar to cooperation with the Taliban on drug policy.

[Didereaux]

1. Hamad Kharzais' uncle is a major player in the drugs...

THe uncle is one of the main drug lords as well as one of the main financers of the Aghan insurgency(non-taliban). US Spec War Ops personnel were first ordered to capture him in 2003: when they did and were about to have a repeat of Mogadishu, they were ordered to release him. ALl that is fact, straight from the members of the team.

JUst more evidence of incompetence in all cases and duplicitous political crap in most. Add in the inherent criminal activity of this administration and you have a reality far to complex for the average(meaning at least half of all) Americans to grasp.

Stupidity(genetic) and ignorance(choice) are Americas real enemies.

[Supersedeas]

2. nothing to see here -- feed them more superficial polling numbers and call it news

[bhikkhu]

3. Its a little late to blame the Taliban

who were proclaimed "eliminated" at one recent point. Yet no one disputes that their "elimination" has led to a massive increase in opium production.

So the Taliban may not have been as effective or as honest as once reported in controlling opium production. How effective has US control and UN control been? Much less. The gist of the article might be that, vis a viz opium, the harsh social measures of Taliban were ineffective, and that our own measures are even more ineffective. So the solution would be even harsher measures than those of the regime we deposed, in the name of freedom and democracy?