16 August 2009

"Buy all the opium in Afghanistan, you say?!"..."Brilliant!"

I once sat on a bus coming back from Strasbourg with a good buddy of mine and we got into a difficult conversation with another American there about the war in Afghanistan. He began his argument with the idea that the US just needed to buy the opium from the farmers in Afghanistan to limit the flow of illicit drug money to the Taliban. So far, so good. It got difficult when he began arguing that the US would then just need to decriminalize opium, could sell it and tax it, thus creating a market for Afghan farmers and funding redevelopment efforts.

An elegant plan, I must say, but one that my friend and I pointed out had a few political hurdles (legalizing opium for one..) and that maybe a more practical plan could be thought of. He was having nothing of it, and insisted that if the US government were to just buy, legalize, and distribute opium, then the war in Afghanistan could be won.

I hadn't thought about this incident for a few months when i came across this article. Seems like there are a few thoughts along the lines of buying the opium from the farmers, and even a pretty good suggestion of what to do with it (hint: not pimping it to Americans). Theres a much more detailed argument here, which also lays out some of the UN hurdles that would have to be jumped if such a plan were to work.

I will say though, that i question the government's ability to control the flow of money between the farmers and the Taliban. Even if we buy the crop the, the Taliban is going to see a percentage of the money we give them as a part of bribery, extortion, and some good old fashioned bullying. Until we can offer the afghan farmers physical protection, i think its going to be hard for them to do business with us legitimately. That being said, it may well be in our interested to buy the opium, accept the inefficiencies and the fact that we're giving the Taliban money, and find a legitimate world market for Afghanistan's major crop.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

1 comment:

  1. It's a far more intelligent argument than others I've heard in your presence about the topic. Just two beefs with it: 1) is that really what poor countries need most? I'll grant that it sucks for people in pain to be without drugs, but couldn't we do more with prevention? Instead of giving morphine to people dying of AIDS, might the social impact of giving people condoms not be better still? (but I see the dude's wife died, so he gets a bye). 2) the US will not threaten to renounce the drugs convention for the benefit of Afghanistan and Africa because all hell would break loose overnight in Latin America, SE Asia, the Horn of Africa, etc. There's more than one ball in play, and they wouldn't/shouldn't sacrifice the lot for Afghanistan.

    ReplyDelete