Economic security, writes the Spectator’s Michael Heath, is the best form of loyalty required to stabilize Afghanistan’s volatile environment (see The Spectator issue May 31, 2008). But how does one provide economic security in a country that depends on the illicit production of poppies, heroin’s source ingredient? Turn a blind eye.
Legitimate crops, writes Heath, never make it to the market. The road-barriers and “tariffs” eats away all profit. Afghan farmers survive through the harsh winter months by relying on loans from dealers. If the farmer defaults, he can either lose his farm or his daughter. Heath puts it bluntly, “It’s either poppy or starvation”
The story of the Afghan farmer, the pressures to survive, indeed to feed his family while warlords (including Afghan ministers) extort monies for various protection services, requires an empathetic perspective. Example, Mullah Salam, once a Taliban leader is now the governor of Musa Qala in Helmund. British sources say Salam is taxing his own people a ton of opium at the end of the poppy harvest. Salam denies the charge.
British soldiers have come to understand its larger contextual relevance and take care not to threaten the crops. Take away the poppy fields and you force the Afghan into the Taliban’s hands.
Poppy, mind you, is not just used to produce heroin. There are other legitimate products, indeed, medicines that could also be produced. Instead of eradicating poppy fields and stripping the Afghan farmer of his only source of revenue, why not attempt to implement a policy that will use the crop to produce medical sedatives; “a poppy for medicine” development program?
According to a study by the Sensil Council, a majority of the world’s population lacks effective pain relief. Unfortunately Afghanistan’s government is ripe with corruption. Such a controversial policy, if ever implemented, could potentially undermine an oligarchy that depends on the drug trade.
