Skip to main content

Feature: Afghan Opium Dilemma Sparks New Calls for Alternative Development, "Normalizing" the Poppy Crop

Submitted by Phillip Smith on (Issue #467)
Drug War Issues

With Afghanistan's opium crop reaching record levels last year and seemingly destined for a repeat performance this year, lawmakers and officials on both sides of the Atlantic are looking for innovative solutions. Or at least some of them are. Seemingly bereft of new ideas, the US government's official line is that the solution is eradicating as much of the crop as possible with herbicides, as drug czar John Walters announced in Kabul two weeks ago.

incised papaver specimens (opium poppies)
While the Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai has endorsed the notion -- though not yet put it into effect -- it has done so reluctantly, knowing that eradication will infuriate the hundreds of thousands of poor farmers who depend on the poppy harvest to feed their families. As the Karzai government knows full well, angry poppy farmers mean bad times for the government and good times for the resurgent Taliban, which awaits the aggrieved growers with open arms.

But while the US government and a grudging Afghan government are embracing standard drug war tactics, the situation in Afghanistan has created the political space for the consideration of other solutions. Some, such as alternative development proposals, are almost as shop-worn a response as eradication, while others, including various schemes to legitimize the poppy crop, represent a break with the global prohibitionist consensus.

Alternative development -- the substitution of other cash crops for opium poppies and the creation of new economic activities -- is the preferred solution of a number of scholars and non-governmental organizations, as well as the international community as represented by the United Nations and the World Bank. In a highly detailed report on the Afghan opium economy released at the end of November, the World Bank called for a "smart" counter-narcotics strategy featuring both alternative development and law enforcement action against the trade, but even as it did so, it underscored that alternative development would be a long-term -- not a short-term -- solution.

"A 'smart' counter-narcotics strategy will be essential for the effectiveness and sustainability of the fight against drugs," the report noted. "The diversity, flexibility, and dynamic character of the drug industry have been amply demonstrated in recent years. It must be recognized that counter-narcotics efforts -- whether enforcement actions or development of alternative livelihoods -- inevitably cannot be anywhere nearly as nimble or quick as the activities they are targeted against, and they inevitably take time, measured in decades rather than years in the case of alternative livelihoods programs."

But evidence of a "smart" counter-narcotics strategy being implemented is severely lacking. As Afghanistan scholar Barnett Rubin noted in a recent article in Foreign Affairs, the US government failed to consolidate gains it made with a small reduction in the area cultivated in 2005. "Although the decrease was due almost entirely to the political persuasion of farmers by the government, the United States failed to deliver the alternative livelihoods the farmers expected and continued to pressure the Afghan government to engage in counterproductive crop eradication," Rubin wrote. "The Taliban exploited the eradication policy to gain the support of poppy growers."

The problem of support for alternative development is not limited to isolated opium growing communities, as Barnett noted. "As numerous studies have documented over the years, Afghanistan has not received the resources needed to stabilize it. International military commanders, who confront the results of this poverty every day, estimate that Washington must double the resources it devotes to Afghanistan. Major needs include accelerated road building, the purchase of diesel for immediate power production, the expansion of cross-border electricity purchases, investment in water projects to improve the productivity of agriculture, the development of infrastructure for mineral exploitation, and a massive program of skill building for the public and private sectors."

And that is the Catch-22 of eliminating the poppy crop through alternative development. While the lack of roads, electric power, and other infrastructure for development make it difficult to get off the ground, let alone sustain alternative development, the opium economy, with its hostility toward interference from the central government and the West and its de facto alliance with insurgents and freelance gun men, makes the creation of such crucial developmental infrastructure almost impossible. In fact, in the face of a revitalized Taliban, some of the non-governmental organizations working on alternative development have fled the opium growing regions.

Rubin is harshly critical of US counter-narcotics policy in Afghanistan, noting that the US at first ignored trafficking by warlords it wanted as allies, then, as the uproar over increasing opium production grew louder, called for crop eradication. "To Afghans," he wrote, "this policy has looked like a way of rewarding rich drug dealers while punishing poor farmers."

After noting that the current global prohibition regime does not reduce drug use, but does produce huge profits for criminals, armed insurrectionists, and corrupt government officials, Rubin recommends treating the opium problem as a security and development issue. But then we are back to Catch-22. Still, he makes certain concrete recommendations: "[R]ural development in both poppy-growing and non-poppy-growing areas, including the construction of roads and cold-storage facilities to make other products marketable; employment creation through the development of new rural industries; and reform of the Ministry of the Interior and other government bodies to root out major figures involved with narcotics, regardless of political or family connections."

But the continuing expansion of the Afghan opium economy, combined with the reemergence of the Taliban and its Al Qaeda allies and the need for US and NATO soldiers to fight and die to try to stop them, has led to increasing calls for an approach that transcends both repression and alternative development. Most recently, in the past few days, a US congressman and British Member of Parliament (MP) have called separately for diverting the poppy crop into the legitimate medicinal market for opioid pain relievers.

The European defense and drug policy think tank Senlis Council was first out of the gate with that notion, unveiling a comprehensive proposal to do just that. But that proposal has so far gained little traction, garnering the support of only a handful of Western politicians. Still, rising fears in the West that attempts to eradicate the crop will lead to increased political instability and violence by driving Afghan farmers into the waiting arms of the Taliban appear to be leading to a new receptivity to the notion -- or something similar.

Here in the US, Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-MO) said last week that he would use his newly acquired seat on the House International Relations Committee to raise the issue this month. "You can't just cut off the poppies because that's the livelihood of the people who live there," Carnahan said. "But providing them with alternative legal markets for pain-relief medication is a way to help cut back on that heroin supply."

Carnahan cited the successful experiences of Turkey and India in the early 1970s, when US officials were worried about a rising tide of heroin from poppy crops in those two countries. Officials in the Nixon administration drafted a treaty that blunted the threat by allowing Turkey and India to sell their crops to make pain medications as part of their legitimate economies. Carnahan is also exploring the idea of using altered, morphine-free poppies containing thebaine, which can be turned into a number of therapeutic compounds, including oxycodone, oxymorphon, naltrexone, and buprenorphine. The altered poppies that produce thebaine are the strain that is used in Australia, where they are grown under license for the medicinal market.

"The idea of creating a trade for morphine-free opium is very worthwhile and needs to be thought through carefully," said Toni Kutchan, a biochemist at the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in St. Louis. "It should not be pushed off the table by a knee-jerk reaction against it."

"I'd certainly like to see a study on how feasible that is," said James Dobbins, director at the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the RAND Corp. "I do think that the current US and international effort is at best a kind of a band aid that can't have more than a marginal impact."

"I think the government should give serious consideration to attempting to implement that type of program," said Dr. Charles Schuster, former head of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Current US policies alone "are never going to be the solution for this," he added.

But the senior State Department official heading US efforts to fight the Afghan drug trade scoffed. Tom Schweich said the idea was "not realistic." Instead, he counseled more of the same. "You really need to keep it illegal and eradicate it," Schweich said.

Meanwhile, a British MP last week was calling on the British government to just buy up the Afghan opium crop and use it around the world for pain relief. South West Beds MP Andrew Selous asked the House of Commons why not? "Why, given that heroin can have legitimate medical uses, cannot we buy up the Afghan heroin crop and use it around the world for pain relief? That would stop it flooding into this country illegally. We need much serious thought on that issue."

Selous cited the murders of five addicted prostitutes in Ipswich last month. "I read the biographies of the women who were so brutally and horrifically murdered and I cannot have been the only one to be struck by the fact that they were all heroin addicts," he said. "It is a problem that affects all our constituencies -- there will not be a single Member of Parliament who does not have a heroin problem in their constituency. Given that we know that 90% of the heroin on UK streets comes from Afghanistan and that we have a major military presence there, it is extraordinary that we cannot do more to stop the poppy crop ending up here."

While the Bush administration is pushing for tougher measures and chemical eradication of the crops, and the UN, World Bank, and some academics are advocating intensified development and state-building strategies as an adjunct or alternative, the chorus of critics looking for a better way is growing, and they are implicitly -- if not explicitly -- challenging the global prohibition regime itself.

Permission to Reprint: This content is licensed under a modified Creative Commons Attribution license. Content of a purely educational nature in Drug War Chronicle appear courtesy of DRCNet Foundation, unless otherwise noted.


Anonymous (not verified)

Graham Green added an appendix to his novel "The Quiet American" praising opium and describing the smell as the most intelligent odor in the world.
My experience with opium leads me to agree with him.
It is absurd that I could score heroin (or crack) on the street within half an hour but there is no raw opium out there which is relatively harmless.


Sat, 01/06/2007 - 7:31am Permalink
Anonymous (not verified)

I am a retired federal officer with 30+ year involvement in the drug wars in the United States and can testify that it has been a complete failure causing much more harm than good. Normalizaing the Poppy crop makes perfect sense and was recommended last year by the Senlis Council. Legalizaing the sale of opium and heroin will immediately take money and power out of the hands of the Terrorist organizations that benefit from the drugs being illegal. Legalizing all drugs will also remove approximately 80% of the crime almost immediately. Just remember than when alcohol was legalized Al Capone and his thugs were out of business. When drugs are regulated and controlled by the governments criminal involvement will be greatly diminished and the illure cause by them being illegal and glamorized in some circles will end. A recent 10 year study in Switzerland shows that after free heroin was provided to addicts there was a dramatic drop in new heroin users. Lets legalize, regulate and control all drugs and take them out of the hands of criminals. Drugs are too dangerous to be left in their hands. [email protected]

Sat, 01/06/2007 - 12:37pm Permalink
Anonymous (not verified)

Alcohol, the most-accepted, most-State/Church-promoted, standard recreational substance in the Western World does way more harm than all other drugs, legal and illegal, combined.
An understanding by politicians of this simple fact would sound the death-knell for prohibition.

Sun, 01/07/2007 - 12:16pm Permalink
Anonymous (not verified)

After successfully participating in the only North American study currently underway on the effects of legally prescribed heroin (The NAOMI study in Canada) I must admit that the idea has struck me that while I was in the study my life stabalized for the first time in years. I no longer had to worry about where I was going to earn(or steal) the money to purchase my drugs, I also no longer had to worry about source and strength of supply.
Now that my 15 months are finished in this trial, i am once again forced to deal with the insanity of prohibition. Looking back at my experience with NAOMI, I realize that even this approach is insufficient. A large part of the opoid use dilemna is that one is forced to seek the permission of a physician or go to an illegal source to secure the drug one requires.
All drugs, not just heroin and cocaine need to be freely available to whomever has the means to pay for them. Why is it that the 2 most destructive drugs on the planet, Nicotine and Alcohol, are available everywhere but valuum or percodan or morphine are not?: Could it be that the medical profession stands to lose as much power to control our lives as law enforcement/government does if drugs were legal?
Why is it acceptable for someone to "get a buzz" on say,whiskey, but can send you to prison if you want the same opportunity with pot or heroin. The problem is one of conrtrol. The government wants to control my right to what I put in to my body but doesn't seem much to care what corporate industrial contributors dump into our rivers and lakes. It also seems ironic that heroin, next to aspirin the cheapest drug to manufacture on the planet, is worth more than gold or diamonds by the time it reaches the streets of any city in the industrialized west. Could it also be that the government needs a permanent underclass to keep prisons full and the fear factor high.
Perhaps if the citizenry were not so blinded by the hyperbole of the current drug policy thinking,which coincidentally has remained unchanged since the 1920s(around the time of the creation of the precursor to the DEA and the issuance of licensing requirements for prescriptions by the AMA and endorsed by the gocvernment, we would see that this "war" on drugs is really a war on freedom and the easiest way for the very wealthy who are really the ones in charge, to keep the peoples thoughts from what's really important. Such as how has it been possible that today, 90% of the wealth of the planet Earth is controlled by less that one tenth of one percent of the world's total population?
If we ever want to change the world for the better, before it's too late, we had better start by challenging the most insane, odious and obvious methods of control. We need to demand our right to do with our minds and bodies whatevr we will while making sure we make the planet safer for us all.
Gary S Occhipinti

Mon, 01/08/2007 - 2:31pm Permalink

Add new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.