Back to Story List |
Los Angeles Times,
Jan 02, 2005
An Afghan Quandary for the U.S.
By Sonni Efron
Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON - With a bumper poppy harvest expected in Afghanistan
in the new year, a debate has erupted within the Bush administration
on whether the United States should push for the crop's destruction
despite the objections of the Afghan government.
Some U.S. officials advocate aerial spraying to reduce the opium
crop, warning that if harvested, it could flood the West with heroin,
fill the coffers of Taliban fighters and fund terrorist activity
in Afghanistan and beyond. They estimate the haul could earn Afghan
warlords up to $7 billion, up from a record $2.2 billion in 2004.
With the January planting season approaching, the State Department
is asking Congress to earmark nearly $780 million in aid to Afghanistan,
the world's largest opium producer, for a counter-narcotics effort
that would include $152 million for aerial eradication.
Although Afghan President Hamid Karzai has declared a "jihad"
against the drug trade, he has vetoed aerial spraying. And his stance
is supported by some U.S. officials, who warn that attempts at mass
crop eradication in spring, during the campaign season for parliamentary
elections scheduled for April, will alienate rural voters. Instead,
they argue for a delay in crop eradication but a vigorous crackdown
on drug traffickers.
The dispute underscores a vexing dilemma for the United States.
Having ousted the Taliban from power, the Bush administration now
finds that its three main policy objectives in the strategically
important country - counter-terrorism, counter-narcotics and political
stability - appear to be contradictory.
President Bush's Cabinet has discussed the problem, sources said,
and the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan met with Bush in December.
But the White House has reportedly not made a final decision.
"We still don't have a policy," a senior Republican congressional
aide said on condition of anonymity.
The arguments over Afghan policy have cut across the usual administration
lines, dividing policymakers within the State Department, National
Security Council and Pentagon, administration and congressional
sources said.
Some diplomats as well as many outside experts argue that aerial
spraying, in particular, would be folly.
"You tell them, 'You're voting for a new democratic country,'
while their government is allowing foreigners to come in and destroy
their livelihood?" said Barnett R. Rubin, who was an advisor
to the U.N. in Afghanistan in 2001. "And if you try to destroy
it and have the economy decline by 10%, 20%, 40% in one year, what
will the result be? The result will be armed revolt."
Instead of trying to eradicate this year's poppy crop, the U.S.
and Afghan governments should focus on providing alternative livelihoods
for farmers, improving law enforcement and drug interdiction. Eradication
should only be considered once the political climate is more stable,
argued Mark L. Schneider, a former Peace Corps director now at the
International Crisis Group.
Aerial spraying, Schneider warned, would be tantamount to "providing
the Taliban with a great recruiting slogan: 'Go with us, or they'll
spray you.' "
Other administration officials and lawmakers warn that allowing
the Afghan economy to become dependent on narco-profits could be
even more dangerous.
One official noted that the Sept. 11 commission estimated that it
had cost only $400,000 to $500,000 to carry out the terrorist attacks
on the United States. "Imagine what they can do with $10 billion.
You [can] own a country with that much money."
Advocates of an aggressive strategy worry that warlords could use
drug profits to influence the coming election. And they argue for
swift intervention before next year's harvest further swells the
warlords' coffers.
Robert B. Charles, assistant secretary of State for international
narcotics and law enforcement, has asserted in testimony before
Congress that drug profits are "almost definitely" funding
the Taliban, which once banned opium farming, and possibly Al Qaeda
as well.
According to Charles, the profits are also flowing to the Hezb-i-Islami
faction led by warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The terrorist group,
which has staged attacks aimed at driving U.S. forces out of Afghanistan,
is loosely allied with the Taliban and has ties to Osama bin Laden.
The U.S. government estimates that poppy cultivation exploded from
150,000 acres in 2003 to 510,000 acres in 2004 - much higher than
an earlier U.N. estimate of 324,000 acres. That works out to potential
profits of up to $7 billion, says Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (R-Ill.),
who follows counter-narcotics efforts from the House Appropriations
Committee.
Worse, according to the United Nations, opium poppies are now grown
in all 34 Afghan provinces, up from 18 provinces in 1999 and just
eight provinces in 1994. (Afghanistan created two provinces in 2004.)
The explosion in cultivation suggests that Afghan drug traffickers
are offering agricultural advice, and possibly credit to farmers
who are switching to the lucrative cash crop, officials said.
For the Bush administration, one of the most contentious issues
is the role of the military in the drug war. The Pentagon has been
opposed to becoming involved in counter-narcotics efforts, viewing
it as "mission creep" that distracts from the military's
main job of battling insurgents.
Moreover, U.S. commanders fear that villagers will stop giving support
and tips about insurgent activity if American soldiers begin interfering
with their biggest source of income. In addition, many drug traffickers
have been U.S. allies in the continuing struggle against the Taliban.
But the State Department and a number of lawmakers have been lobbying
the military for more than a year to help the counter-narcotics
effort, arguing that squeezing drug profits is essential to strangling
the insurgency.
And although the Pentagon is increasingly sympathetic to the argument,
sources said, the State Department and Drug Enforcement Administration
want it to do more: step up intelligence-gathering on drug traffickers,
target and destroy drug laboratories, and participate in special
anti-drug operations.
A senior administration official argued that "the single most
effective way" to fight the drug trade in Afghanistan would
be for the Pentagon to order that opium processing laboratories
and heroin storage facilities be treated like other "core military
targets."
Under the State Department's budget proposal, Congress would set
aside nearly $780 million in aid to Afghanistan over the next three
years for counter-narcotics programs: $173 million for interdiction,
$180 million for law enforcement, $5 million for a public information
campaign, including broadcasting anti-drug messages from supportive
mullahs, $120 million for programs to develop alternative livelihoods
for farmers, and nearly $300 million for eradication programs.
Congress is expected to approve the funding. "We have a record
opium production that needs to be lowered because so many of the
profits are used to finance Bin Laden and his operation," Rep.
Kirk said. "On the other hand, you have to conduct an anti-drug
campaign first and foremost with political sensitivity."
The eradication budget calls for $138 million for manual destruction
- physically cutting or burning crops - starting in mid-January
or early February in Helmand province in the south, and $152 million
for aerial spraying beginning in March.
But foes say it is politically unwise and potentially dangerous
to public health and the environment.
The senior GOP aide argued that aerial spraying could become a public
relations nightmare, with the United States forced to "explain
to our Al Jazeera listeners that we're not literally poisoning to
death" the Muslim population.
U.S. officials say the herbicide used is a very diluted form of
Monsanto's Roundup, a glyphosate that is approved for use in American
gardens and has been sprayed safely in Colombia and elsewhere. They
note that anti-drug crews trying to destroy fields on the ground
would need armed protection in many areas. And they say the sheer
size of the Afghan crop makes aerial spraying the only real option.
"History shows that not a country in the world has been able
to eradicate the crop manually," the senior administration
official said.
Immediately after his inauguration last month, Karzai held a conference
with tribal leaders to discuss the drug problem. But the president
is worried about the health and environmental effects of spraying
as well as the political fallout, another senior U.S. official said.
His plan relies on public appeals, better law enforcement and some
manual eradication. The Afghans have told U.S. officials they can
cut and burn more than 74,000 acres this year.
In an effort to change Karzai's mind, some U.S. officials want him
to speak with officials in Colombia about the threat drug traffickers
can pose.
But the second official, noting that Karzai is a newly elected head
of a sovereign nation, said the U.S. must not try to pressure him.
"I don't want to get into our internal fight except to say
that I believe it will be foolish to push for aerial [spraying]
at this point," the official said. "But I wouldn't rule
it out indefinitely. We will have to see if the Karzai plan produces
the results he anticipates."
|