Opium production in Afghanistan

[likesfish]

we have got helicopter gunships in the vicinity does gives us the edge in battering
oi abdul except this large cheque from hm goverment or we'll bomb you:hmm

uk forces refine and profit form dugs trade (legal morphine and sovle the recruitment problem)
beware short haired suntaned dealers offering suspiciously cheap drugs

 

[CyberRose]

I think it's a sensible idea. Morphine comes from opium doesn't it and we need that?

We do but I don't think we need 90% of the world's heroin! Perhaps the surplus could be used to treat domestic addicts (as taking 90% of the world's heroin off the streets might pose a teeny problem for them!)

But (here's a counter-argument) the minute the 'West' starts trying to buy it before the drugs barons do, the price will start to spiral upwards and it will become even more valuable as a cash crop, until every farmer in the whole of Afghanistan will be furiously growing it and the drugs barons will still be getting their share, just at a slightly raised price.

The cost will spiral but outside of Afghanistan where the demand is. If the farmers are happy with their level of income there'd be no need to alter the price of it. To tackle the drug barons, I think we should take troops out of Iraq and redeploy them in Afghanistan (I know that'd be a sore issue on U75, but I've always supported the Afghan War and think that valuable resources were wasted in Iraq when they were desperately needed in Afghanistan). An influx of troops could be used to deal with the drug mafias.

 

[teqniq]

I would fight your 'plan for britain' 'til my last breath, were it not the pipe-dream of a powerless gruntfuttock.

lol

Here is a snippet of an article which is somewhat relevant:

Monday, February 4, 2008
Rubin: Report Says US Counter-Narcotics Policy in Afghanistan Fuels Insurgency

This is the press release for our new report on counter-narcotics in Afghanistan, based on the posts that appeared here months ago.

New Report: International counter-narcotics policy in Afghanistan victimizes the poorest and fuels armed resistance

Opium poppy eradication is fueling the Taliban; the U.S., NATO, and Afghan Government should focus on delivering increased livelihoods programs and enhancing interdiction of traffickers.

Report released prior to major international meeting on Afghan policy in Tokyo on Wednesday 6 February; embargo ends at noon EST on Monday 4 February.

linky

 

[nino_savatte]

would you vote for a govt. that proposed Cyber's solution, untethered?

Of course not.

 

[CyberRose]

Of course not.

How are you in any position to answer that question when I am supposedly on ignore, meaning you have no way of reading my original post (seeing as nobody else quoted it)

 

[rover07]

Legalising and buying the Opium crop is a great idea. I once saw a progamme on TV in which an Afghan expat group was advocating and promoting the idea. Hopefully it will be accepted soon, burning opium crops just pisses off and impoverishes the farmers.

 

[untethered]

Legalising and buying the Opium crop is a great idea. I once saw a progamme on TV in which an Afghan expat group was advocating and promoting the idea. Hopefully it will be accepted soon, burning opium crops just p- off and impoverishes the farmers.

Is the best way to secure our own interests to invade other countries that might give us potential problems and sort them out by force? Aren't we already seeing the shortcomings of that kind of policy?

 

[CyberRose]

Legalising and buying the Opium crop is a great idea. I once saw a progamme on TV in which an Afghan expat group was advocating and promoting the idea. Hopefully it will be accepted soon, burning opium crops just pisses off and impoverishes the farmers.

Well my solution would still allow NATO forces to burn the crops if that's what they wanted to do with it, it's just that this way, the farmers get paid as normal preventing them from getting pissed off. It's really no different to any other farming subsidy in essence (instead of wine lakes or butter mountains, we'd have poppy mountains)

 

[CyberRose]

Is the best way to secure our own interests to invade other countries that might give us potential problems and sort them out by force? Aren't we already seeing the shortcomings of that kind of policy?

It's a solution to a problem that already exists, not a hypothetical future. NATO forces already occupy Afghanistan and should not leave until the Taliban threat has gone away and the country has some stability. The Taliban threat will not go away whilst ever the Northern Alliance run amok (with the backing of NATO forces who need them to battle the Taliban). If we can eliminate the reliance on opium, it could lead to a reducation of the NA's power base and allow Afghan government forces to affirm their grip on the country, leading to more stability.

 

[Brainaddict]

It seems the British government is, as always, ready with its own innovative solution to Afghanistan's problems:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=239305

 

[nino_savatte]

I wonder what T Blair would have to say - eh?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I wonder, can the increased opium trade be a sign of improved stability? Clearly there's more being exported, which means either there's less lost to wastage or greater production. The former wouldn't imply anything good about the ability to suppress smuggling but the latter implies the farmers are either shifting to a more profitable commodity (as all good capitalists should) or becoming more productive in general..

 

[CyberRose]

I wonder what T Blair would have to say - eh?

Dunno, I reckon you think he'll say something along the lines of: "All hail the Emperor of Europe, bow down before your master"

But then that's because your understanding of the EU is poor

I'm also struggling to understand the relevance of that comment here in a thread that, despite my pure brilliance in envisioning such a revolutionary idea, has practically died and was well on the way to U75 obscurity...

(PS. Hi Nino from your Yahoo account!)

 

[CyberRose]

I wonder, can the increased opium trade be a sign of improved stability? Clearly there's more being exported, which means either there's less lost to wastage or greater production. The former wouldn't imply anything good about the ability to suppress smuggling but the latter implies the farmers are either shifting to a more profitable commodity (as all good capitalists should) or becoming more productive in general..

Don't think so because as an illegal trade, the government, I should imagine, won't be collecting any revenues from that trade. I think stability will come with a strengthened Afghan government, but the opium trade only serves to strengthen those warlords that led to the mass support for the Taliban coming to power (who, insidently, are currently allied with NATO in the fight against the Taliban!)

 

[Bob_the_lost]

The government not making money off it doesn't mean that it's not a sign of greater stability.

 

[CyberRose]

The government not making money off it doesn't mean that it's not a sign of greater stability.

Its a sign of stability in so far the 12% of the population reliant on the trade or not unemployed, however, I don't think it will lead to the long term stability of the country. Long term stability will be provided when they can find other legal industries for those 12% to work in, because whilst ever they are growing opium the government is going to face pressure from outside, and in turn, they are going to have to put pressure on the farmers to stop production (which as we have seen, leads to instability when there is no alternative employment)

 

[ViolentPanda]

I wonder, can the increased opium trade be a sign of improved stability? Clearly there's more being exported, which means either there's less lost to wastage or greater production. The former wouldn't imply anything good about the ability to suppress smuggling but the latter implies the farmers are either shifting to a more profitable commodity (as all good capitalists should) or becoming more productive in general..

Good question.
The Pakistani journalist and author Rashid Ahmed puts the growth down not to "stability" per se, but to the fact that certain important transport arteries "mysteriously" appear to be problem-free, even though said arteries go through the territories of warring factions. There's also the issue of a lot of land around Kabul that was unusable in the 90s because of mining being cleared and put back into use for arable, fruit and veg, so farmers elsewhere with more marginal land are going back to producing the least input-intensive and most profitable crop.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Don't think so because as an illegal trade, the government, I should imagine, won't be collecting any revenues from that trade. I think stability will come with a strengthened Afghan government, but the opium trade only serves to strengthen those warlords that led to the mass support for the Taliban coming to power (who, insidently, are currently allied with NATO in the fight against the Taliban!)

The state of Afghanistan may not benefit from the illegal trade (or from the illegal trade in other items such as fuel and weapons), but we can reasonably speculate that the government, in the form of politicians and civil servants, do benefit from it.

 

[CyberRose]

The state of Afghanistan may not benefit from the illegal trade (or from the illegal trade in other items such as fuel and weapons), but we can reasonably speculate that the government, in the form of politicians and civil servants, do benefit from it.

You knew what I meant!!!!

 

[ViolentPanda]

You knew what I meant!!!!

Of course I did, that's why I had so much fun writing what I did!