Afghan 'drug state'

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#1



The UN has warned that Afghanistan could become a "narco-state" after opium cultivation rose by two-thirds this year.
A UN report released on Thursday urged the US and Nato forces to fight drugs as well as Taleban insurgents.



It said Afghanistan now supplied 87% of world opium. In 2003, the trade was worth $2.8bn, representing more than 60% of gross domestic product.

One in 10 Afghans are now estimated to be involved in the business.

The UN said it would be an "historical error" to abandon the nation to opium.

'No silver bullet'

The UN Afghanistan Opium Survey 2004 said the drug was now the "main engine of economic growth and the strongest bond among previously quarrelsome peoples".



Afghan opium production graph

It said opium cultivation had increased by 64% compared to 2003.

Antonio Maria Costa, executive director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, said the report was a wake-up call to the world.

Mr Costa said the Afghan government was too weak to tackle the problem alone.

He called on US and Nato-led forces to carry out military operations against drug traffickers.



"In Afghanistan, drugs are now a clear and present danger," Mr Costa said.


"The fear that Afghanistan might degenerate into a narco-state is becoming a reality."

He said there was "no silver bullet" with which to tackle the problem.


"The opium economy in Afghanistan has to be dismantled with democracy, the rule of law and economic improvement - it will be a long and difficult process," Mr Costa said.

The UN report said opium production in 2004 was close to the peak of 4,600 tons in 1999, a year before the Taleban banned new cultivation.

The BBC's Roland Buerk in Kabul says it is easy to see why 2.3m people - a tenth of the population - is involved in opium, when a farmer can earn more than 10 times as much growing poppies than cultivating wheat.

US prosecutions


The report came as the US announced a major new offensive against drug production in Afghanistan.

Washington expects to spend an extra $780m in the next financial year on measures including the eradication of poppies and alternatives for farmers.

US officials describe the new plan as a full-board commitment to support the new Afghan government in its battle against the growing drugs trade.

A senior Western diplomat in Kabul also told the BBC there were plans to take some of the largest drugs barons to the United States to prosecute them there.

Robert Charles, assistant secretary of state for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement, described poppy cultivation as a primary, if not the primary, concern for the country.

Aggressive eradication would be backed up, Mr Charles said, by a public information campaign, better law enforcement and, perhaps most crucially, real alternatives for farmers.

"You don't go in and eradicate in an area without making provision... for a marked up or added alternative development resources, or alternative livelihoods," he said.
 
Apr 25, 2002
15,044
157
0
#5
Devil's advocate maybe . . .

But don't you think it's better to let the Afghan people get on their feet and become self reliant as fast as posssible?

Eradicating their harvests will eliminate many of these people's only income.

Sustainable growth of alternative crops in any country (let alone one with a landscape like Afghanistan) is difficult.

Spend time looking for "terrorists" vs. taking away the only viable source of income for these people to get back on their feet with. Where should to focus be?
 
Jan 2, 2003
1,439
6
0
#7
i saw this on the news today...and frankly i was like "wtf!!!" 60% of GDP!!!....THATS AMAZING...

talk about a "cash crop"....geezus..its their economy!
 
Jul 7, 2002
3,105
0
0
#10
FunK-3-FivE said:
Pineapples and oranges dont sell for a couple grand a pound.

i dont know if i was joking or not ... anyways in boliva the cocaleros are encourge to plant pineapples, anything other than coca. Of course the cocaleros fought back, and are still fighting. and the reason why they fight is becuase coca is part of there history/tradition, currently the government is conducting a study, this of course is errating the US.
 
Mar 27, 2004
306
0
0
#11
i remember driving through the countryside outside jalalabad and there were just fields of opium as far as the eye can see

i think the afghan gov't should either take control of the drug cultivation or sell it to pharmacutical companies like they used to do in the 60's and 70's, fuck destroying it...its like burning money
 
Jul 7, 2002
3,105
0
0
#12
A1Yola415 said:
i remember driving through the countryside outside jalalabad and there were just fields of opium as far as the eye can see

i think the afghan gov't should either take control of the drug cultivation or sell it to pharmacutical companies like they used to do in the 60's and 70's, fuck destroying it...its like burning money

what are you going in afghan?
 
Jan 9, 2004
3,340
131
0
42
#14
ColdBlooded said:
But don't you think it's better to let the Afghan people get on their feet and become self reliant as fast as posssible?

Eradicating their harvests will eliminate many of these people's only income.

Sustainable growth of alternative crops in any country (let alone one with a landscape like Afghanistan) is difficult.

Spend time looking for "terrorists" vs. taking away the only viable source of income for these people to get back on their feet with. Where should to focus be?

The US government supports this idea, otherwise they would have carpet-bombed the poppyfields with Agent Orange at the beginning of the Taliban regime removal. Next time a junkie shoots up, he should bless the government for allowing heroin to be such an easy commodity to come by.
 
Apr 25, 2002
15,044
157
0
#15
Continuing as "devil's advocate"

If they did that would it not drive the Afghan people to even greater depths of poverty and thus into the hands of the Taliban or any other resistance movement opposed to the U.S. occupation and the newly democratically elected Afghan gov. ?
 
Jan 9, 2004
3,340
131
0
42
#16
ColdBlooded said:
If they did that would it not drive the Afghan people to even greater depths of poverty and thus into the hands of the Taliban or any other resistance movement opposed to the U.S. occupation and the newly democratically elected Afghan gov. ?
That's probably why they didn't. The good ol US of A, looking out for the little guy in Afganistan at the expense of the dopeheads in the U.S., seems like an economic angle can be formulated from this information.
 

phil

Sicc OG
Apr 25, 2002
7,311
27
0
115
#17
i remember this topic coming up a couple years ago. its funny because since the action in afghanistan heroin use is up like 8 billion percent where i live. like it just blew up out of nowhere.