Foreign Policy

Former Member

A while ago we had a debate about the impact of foreign policy, and how it is important to accept that the policies of a country can be detrimental.

Now this is an example of that.

The recent UK/US policy of ousting the Taliban from Afghanistan, whilst laudable, has had an interesting side effect.

In 1999/2000, Afghanistan produced over 3000 tonnes of poppies (heroin). So the Taliban instituted a ban, and of course they were rarely disobeyed.

In 2000/2001, Afghanistan produced approx 180 tonnes. A successful policy by all accounts.

In 2002 following the removal of the Taliban, poppy farming has returned at greater level than in 2000! This is partly due to the inflated price the farmers are paid for the poppies (which went up as supply dropped), as opposed to the minimal amounts they get for wheat...

Nice to see capitalism is now alive and well in the newly free Afghanistan !!!

Former Member

Yes well....Im sure a period of such war or conflict has an effect on the governments ability to control this trade. Im sure once things are done in Afghanistan and are returning to relative peace under the new government then the poppy production will drop again. Is it surprising that the poppy growers have increased production while there is no policing.

Also interesting that the ban from the Taliban was only done because the US asked them and paid them something like 40 million dollars to 'fight' this trade.

Former Member

One problem facing Hammed Karzai's new government is that it will not be able to prevent opium production as effectively as the Taliban did. The Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice had slightly sterner punishments for the growing (stoning, limb amputation etc) than the new government will have, and will be allowed to have by the UN (rightly so). Thus opium production will continue to flourish, until poverty has been stamped out and its no longer necessary for farmers to be forced to grow poppies in order to have just enough money to feed their family.

Former Member

Originally posted by Vox populi, vox Dei:
<STRONG> Thus opium production will continue to flourish, until poverty has been stamped out and its no longer necessary for farmers to be forced to grow poppies in order to have just enough money to feed their family.</STRONG>

So that means that it will never stop, right?

Or are you suggesting that Afhgan farmers are a different breed from everyone else and will settle for 'just enough money to feed their family' and won't be after the TV, Car, Video (not to mention the power) which a large bank balance will bring.

Originally posted by Balddog
<STRONG>Also interesting that the ban from the Taliban was only done because the US asked them and paid them something like 40 million dollars to 'fight' this trade. </STRONG>

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that the UK/US has done anything wrong. What I am saying is that we have to take responsibilty for the effects which our Foreign Policy has, or at least we must accept that foreign policy can have unfortunate implications, in this case it is an increased prodcution of heroin (which will probably hit the UK markets soon) and in other cases led to the WTC attacks...

Arming Iraq during the Iran/Iraq War, was a good step at the time, but seemed folly in 1991

Arming the Afghan during the Russian occupation was a good idea at the time, but was proved folly when some of them turned on the US.

And giving the Taliban $40m dollars seemed like a good idea, until the terrorists, which the US knew they were hiding, attacked the US...

Former Member

Good points there. No doubt UN peacekeepers(read British soldiers) will be called in to try and control the drugs problem on behalf of the new govt.

Former Member

A solution-
Get lots of soldiers/modified tanks
Equip those soldiers with flame throwers and pestecides
Send those soldiers to the fields
Tell them to BURN everything.

No more opium.

Former Member

Poppies are extremely resilient and reasonably easy to grow. Within a matter of weeks of the burnings, they would be growing again, fertilised by the remains of the previous, burnt poppies. This would require every field in Afghanistan to be burnt every week for ever. How much is that going to cost?

Even without this logistical impossibility, its a bad idea.

Former Member

Originally posted by Vox populi, vox Dei:
<STRONG>Poppies are extremely resilient and reasonably easy to grow. Within a matter of weeks of the burnings, they would be growing again, fertilised by the remains of the previous, burnt poppies. This would require every field in Afghanistan to be burnt every week for ever. How much is that going to cost?

Even without this logistical impossibility, its a bad idea.</STRONG>

Then nuke the damn place. As far as I'm concerned the initial cost in the short term will be a lot less than the cost of trying to police and find the heroin when it gets to our shores.

Former Member

Originally posted by Whowhere:
<STRONG>

Then nuke the damn place. As far as I'm concerned the initial cost in the short term will be a lot less than the cost of trying to police and find the heroin when it gets to our shores.</STRONG>

I would post a counter-argument, but I think there's little need to argue the question of nuking millions of innocent people; the idiocy speaks for itself.

Former Member

Originally posted by Vox populi, vox Dei:
<STRONG>

I would post a counter-argument, but I think there's little need to argue the question of nuking millions of innocent people; the idiocy speaks for itself.</STRONG>

Im not talking about proper nukes. A few tactical warheads, a few kilotons at most will be all that's needed <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
The only way to stop the supply, seriously is to destroy the crop, or prevent the crop being harvested.

Former Member

Whilst ensuring the deaths of millions of people from nuclear fall out, and the rendering of the land completely useless for habitation for hundreds of years. A refugee mass exodus would occur, and then you'd be complaining about immigration levels.

Face it - nukes aren't the answer. Neither is napalm or Agent Orange-style herbicides.

Former Member

Originally posted by Vox populi, vox Dei:
<STRONG>Whilst ensuring the deaths of millions of people from nuclear fall out, and the rendering of the land completely useless for habitation for hundreds of years. A refugee mass exodus would occur, and then you'd be complaining about immigration levels.

Face it - nukes aren't the answer. Neither is napalm or Agent Orange-style herbicides.</STRONG>

lol, i'm kidding. I don't know how to solve the problem, i didn't create it in the first place.

Former Member

Call me stupid if you like, but the Taliban managed, with help from the US. The difference being that they acted on the problem.

All it needs is a little focus. If the current Afghan Govt don't do anything about it, then the market will grow. If they stamp on it now, and if the 'west' gives them the financial support which they gave the Taliban, then perhaps it can be nipped in the buid (so to speak).

Former Member

The point I made earlier was that the Taliban achieved enforcement through terrorising farmers, and in many cases mutilating them. The new administration can't, and shouldn't, do this.

Former Member

Originally posted by MoK:
<STRONG>Call me stupid if you like, but the Taliban managed, with help from the US. The difference being that they acted on the problem.

All it needs is a little focus. If the current Afghan Govt don't do anything about it, then the market will grow. If they stamp on it now, and if the 'west' gives them the financial support which they gave the Taliban, then perhaps it can be nipped in the buid (so to speak).</STRONG>

But the Taliban relied on violence for control over the people of Afghanistan, and the new govt wouldn't be allowed to implement the same Taliban policies.

If you're a poor Afghan farmer with a choice between starving and growing some poppies, the only thing that's going to stop you growing poppies is violence (or an alternative - name one), so we're stuck with the problem.

Of course, just because the world supply of heroin is about to increase, doesn't mean anymore will be coming our way. And IMO money for customs to stop imports of illegal drugs is money well spent - and the cost (in all senses of the word) of that is less than the cost of the Taliban.

Former Member

Also, a sudden reduction in the supply of heroin could have negative effects. The prices will rocket, due to supply and demand, but addicts, being addicts, won't just say "Oh well, its too expensive - better give up"; they'll start stealing more to finance their habit, so crime, particularly violent crime, will rise.

The problem cannot be solved simply by stopping the supply. Addicts need to be treated and rehabilitated.

Former Member

I'm not advocating dismemberment FFS, just harsh punishment.

This isn't your average crop, this is heroin. Who do you think buys the drugs from these farmers? and who sells it on? IRA, Al Qaeda etc perhaps?

This isn;t just about farmers getting money to feed their families, this is an entire industry used to support either criminal gangs like the Mafia (Russian, Sicillian doesn;t make much difference) or it is used by terrorist organisations to purchase the capability to carry out massive attacks...

Still, I guess its just easier to shrug your shoulders.

Former Member

Originally posted by Vox populi, vox Dei:
<STRONG>The problem cannot be solved simply by stopping the supply. Addicts need to be treated and rehabilitated.</STRONG>

and a good way of helping them is to stem the supply of the drug. I agree that addicts should be treated, but unless you attack the problem from both ends you will achieve nothing. One addict treated, will just be replaced by another new addict

Do you honsetly believe that easy access to heroin is in any way going to help an addict or help reduce the level of addiction?

Former Member

I accept that the supply must be limited, but was highlighting the short term problems associated with a sudden halt in supply.

Former Member

Short term pain, for long term gain. I don't have a problem with it.

Perhaps, for once, it would be a good idea not to suffer from the short-termsism we usually associate with politicians...

Former Member

Originally posted by MoK:
<STRONG>Short term pain, for long term gain. I don't have a problem with it.

Perhaps, for once, it would be a good idea not to suffer from the short-termsism we usually associate with politicians...</STRONG>

What's the solution then?

Former Member

I think we need to take a look at some of the things which have been said earlier.

Destroy the crops once, return and check - if they are replanted then destroy them again and harsh punishment for the farmer should follow.

I certainly don't advocate sitting around saying that 'well the farmer needs to feed his family', as if that is any kind of solution. The crop is grown because it will give the farmer more than enough money to feed them. After all if food was all, then a crop of wheat would help feed them too...

Former Member

Originally posted by MoK:
<STRONG>Destroy the crops once, return and check - if they are replanted then destroy them again and harsh punishment for the farmer should follow.

</STRONG>
People in glass houses...
Do you think we have the right to do this? Where does our responsibility in Afghanistan end? There's no way we can turn that country around by destroying the poppy harvest. Think how difficult it has been to find and destroy Al-Qaeda - do you think we can realistically expect to destroy all of the poppy farms.

<STRONG>I certainly don't advocate sitting around saying that 'well the farmer needs to feed his family', as if that is any kind of solution. The crop is grown because it will give the farmer more than enough money to feed them. After all if food was all, then a crop of wheat would help feed them too...</STRONG>

Surely. But you said yourself that the temptation to make a quick buck is as relevant in Afghanistan as it is in the UK. Afghanistan has huge problems and subsistence farming is not a realistic expectation IMHO.

Former Member

Originally posted by Kentish:
<STRONG>People in glass houses...
Do you think we have the right to do this? Where does our responsibility in Afghanistan end? There's no way we can turn that country around by destroying the poppy harvest. Think how difficult it has been to find and destroy Al-Qaeda - do you think we can realistically expect to destroy all of the poppy farms.</STRONG>

and doing nothing will achieve what exactly?

It's a little like the start of the bombing, do nothing and see drugs on the street, act and at least you put up a fight.

Our fight against drugs ins't just at home, it is about stopping the producing too.

and I haven't said that the US/UK/Un should do this. I said that the Afghan Govt should.

<STRONG> subsistence farming is not a realistic expectation IMHO.</STRONG>

So deny the choice. You either grow crops which will provide food, or your crops will be destroyed and you will be in shit...

[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: MoK ]

Former Member

But what make you think that someone in another country wouldn't start growing opium poppies to fill the demand in the market?

Maybe it would some place that wouldn't listen to the West no matter what incentives or threats are dangled.

Vox populi has a good point in saying that reducing the demand might be more effective in controlling the planting, but I'm still a little skeptical.

What about a little bit of the carrot and the stick? Offer the farmers assistance to plant other cash crops (tobacco, cotton, whatever will grow there) and use stiff fines to discourage those who still do.

Former Member

Originally posted by USC Alex:
<STRONG>
What about a little bit of the carrot and the stick? Offer the farmers assistance to plant other cash crops (tobacco, cotton, whatever will grow there) and use stiff fines to discourage those who still do.</STRONG>

Because opium is worth a LOT more to the farmers than tobacco.

Former Member

You seem to have become confused (with the honourable exception of Kentish)

We have no right to try and wipe out there Opium crop or even coerce the Afghan govt into doing so

Why would the Afghans WANT to destroy the Opium, they need all the money they can get...

Former Member

Of course we have a right to try and get them to stop growing poppies. Those poppies go into producing heroin which kills our population. If we were dumping nuclear waste in Afghanistan, would they have a right to try and get us to stop? Of course they would.

The Afghans will want to destroy the poppies because thats what their new friends want. Im positive that the new Afghan govt would rather have money from the west in the form of aid payments and keep us friendly than earning money from drugs and having the west abandon them.

Former Member

Originally posted by Balddog:
<STRONG>Of course we have a right to try and get them to stop growing poppies. Those poppies go into producing heroin which kills our population. If we were dumping nuclear waste in Afghanistan, would they have a right to try and get us to stop? Of course they would.</STRONG>

But we wouldn't allow them to come over here and shut down our nuclear power stations - that's the point.

Former Member

No, thats not the point.....They would still have the right to demand we stopped the dumping. Thats what Toadborg said.

They wouldnt have the ability to come and stop us dumping by the sure as hell have the right.

Former Member

Originally posted by Balddog:
<STRONG>No, thats not the point.....They would still have the right to demand we stopped the dumping. Thats what Toadborg said.

They wouldnt have the ability to come and stop us dumping by the sure as hell have the right.</STRONG>

No, I think he meant that we have no <STRONG>right</STRONG> to napalm their poppy fields. (That's certainly what I meant.)

We have every right to put political pressure on the Afghan government to stop heroin exports, but most people were suggesting actual destruction of the crop by British troops.