What's new

Taliban and the Drug and Weapons Trade.

I've seen the interview on BBC a while back, the commander had a nice ringtone on his cell phone.

though I wonder why the pressure is only on Pakistan and the ISI lately? it seems as if there's an orchestrated media campaign against Pakistan only, while Iran is left untouched. Apparently, Iran, Russia, and China just won't stand for the US anymore in the region.

while reading this, it's good to reflect on one of Henry Kissinger's most famous quotes,
“To be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal”.
 
.
Karzai’s Brother Denies Heroin Link
NYTIMES.COM

By ABDUL WAHEED WAFA
Published: October 6, 2008
KABUL, Afghanistan — The brother of Afghanistan’s president denied any involvement in the heroin trade at a news conference on Monday, saying accusations linking him to heroin shipments were “baseless” and represented political pressure on the president following his criticism of a recent American airstrike that Afghanistan maintains killed scores of civilians.
Reports Link Karzai’s Brother to Afghanistan Heroin Trade (October 5, 2008) The brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, was challenging an article in The New York Times on Sunday, which examined the concerns of top American officials in Kabul and in Washington that he might be involved in heroin shipments, and that in any case, widespread perceptions that President Hamid Karzai might be protecting him are damaging the government’s credibility and undermining efforts by the United States to buttress it.
In the article, both President Karzai and Ahmed Wali Karzai, now the chief of the Kandahar Provincial Council, dismissed the allegations as politically motivated attacks by longtime foes.

In a telephone interview after the news conference on Monday, Ahmed Wali Karzai addressed a 2004 episode described in the article, in which Afghan security forces found a cache of heroin in a tractor-trailer in Kandahar but, according to notes taken by American investigators, were told to release the drugs and the vehicle by a presidential aide. He said that some of the security forces, including the Kandahar police commander, Habibullah Jan, were political opponents of President Karzai and were disgruntled over programs that cost them arms and influence.

Habibullah Jan was shot dead by two gunmen in July in Kandahar.

President Karzai has increased his criticism of foreign forces in Afghanistan as civilian casualties have mounted in operations meant to strike at insurgents.

The United States military is investigating an assertion by villagers in western Afghanistan that some 90 people, most of them children, died in a missile attack on Aug. 22. The Afghan government and a United Nations investigation have backed that assertion, but American officers have said that fewer than 10 civilians were killed in the strike.
“Whenever anything happen between the international community and President Karzai, there has been an article about me,” Mr. Karzai said at the news conference, “as if I am a boxing bag for their training.:lol::agree:”
 
.
Karzai’s Brother Denies Heroin Link
NYTIMES.COM

By ABDUL WAHEED WAFA
Published: October 6, 2008
KABUL, Afghanistan — The brother of Afghanistan’s president denied any involvement in the heroin trade at a news conference on Monday, saying accusations linking him to heroin shipments were “baseless” and represented political pressure on the president following his criticism of a recent American airstrike that Afghanistan maintains killed scores of civilians.
Interesting.

I think Henry Kissinger summed it up best when he said, being America’s ally is more dangerous than being its enemy. :D
 
.
ASIA PACIFIC
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2008

Jane's Defence Weekly

SACEUR calls for NATO to step up counternarcotics operations in Afghanistan

Brooks Tigner JDW NATO and EU Affairs Correspondent - Brussels

Key Points
SACEUR General John Craddock has requested authority from NATO to target Afghanistan's narcotics industry

Afghanistan's civil authorities are too weak to tackle the problem, the general said


NATO forces in Afghanistan should have the authority to attack the country's narcotics dealers and infrastructure, according to the alliance's top military commander, through the eradication of opium crops should not be part of their remit.

"Narcotics are a cancer that fuels the insurgency. The government of Afghanistan has the responsibility to tackle the narcotics problem, but it cannot do it alone. I've asked for expanded authority from NATO to target laboratories and trafficking facilities," said General John Craddock, Supreme Allied Commander, Europe (SACEUR). "NATO must step up to the task - but not [conduct] crop eradication."

Addressing a policy debate in Brussels on 6 October sponsored by the Security & Defence Agenda (SDA), Gen Craddock said the Taliban insurgency movement earns as much as USD100 million from the country's estimated USD4 billion annual narcotics trade, "which is used to fuel its fight against ISAF [the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan]".

Gen Craddock's request to the North Atlantic Council (NAC) is not new: it was proposed at least four months ago, according to military sources, but has prompted no decision so far on the NAC's part.

"The politicos have had their say and made their view known. Well, now it's time for NATO military authorities to explain the operational side of the story and that's why [Gen] Craddock is going public on this," a military source told Jane's .

"ISAF commanders know where the facilities and mobile laboratories are and want the permission to strike: this request is coming up the military chain from them. Often they drive right by the sites and could take them out with a JDAM [self-guided Joint Direct Attack Munition]. But they can't touch them because that's considered a civil security matter," said the source.

According to Gen Craddock, Afghanistan's civil counternarcotics force is far too weak to do that.

"Counternarcotic is for civil security and law-enforcement forces, but we don't live in a perfect world. The Afghan government's counter-drugs force should do this, but it is too small, under-trained and cannot deal with the ongoing [illicit drug] activity. How long will it take to double its capacity? US and UK estimates put this at two to three years. I don't think we can afford to wait that long. We need [to carry out] tactical manoeuvres with strategic effects."

Asked if he was seeking additional troops and equipment from the NAC to carry out such a mission, Gen Craddock said no. "The authority I have requested does not require additional forces. There is capacity there in Afghanistan to do this."

However, a number of allied governments - led by Belgium, France, Germany and Italy - oppose the idea of letting ISAF move against Afghanistan's narcotics business for several reasons, according to Fabrice Pothier, director of think-tank Carnegie Europe's Brussels office.

"History shows us again and again - Colombia, Thailand, wherever - that using military means to eradicate a country's narcotics trade has no lasting effect. No matter how much the military strikes, the problem comes back again. What it takes is a sustained commitment to building up good governance capacities, including elimination of corruption at the local level," said Pothier.

"Are Germany, France and the others worried that ISAF might lose the 'hearts and minds' of the local population and provoke the Taliban to worse levels of violence if it hits their main source of income? Yes, they are. Also, they also don't want the counternarcotics campaign to be militarised and taken over by NATO as a way to expand ISAF's role in Afghanistan," he added.

Gen Craddock dismissed the idea that strikes against narcotics facilities would anger the Taliban.

"There are a minority of allies who consistently refuse to listen to our arguments. They say if we eradicate the labs and facilities it will make the Taliban even madder at us, but the insurgents are blowing themselves up in sensational ways to kill people anyway. How could it get any worse?"

Yury Khohlov, head of the Afghanistan Section at Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told the SDA gathering: "I agree with [Gen] Craddock about his idea of fighting the counternarcotics. It's the main source of income for violent gangs, and there's no secret the Taliban controls big poppy fields, but you need a carrot-and-stick policy for the farmers. For them not to go for drug-growing, they must receive subsidies. If not, their fields must be sprayed. They won't understand any other terms."

© 2008 Jane's Information Group
 
.
The Big Question: Why is opium production rising in Afghanistan, and can it be stopped?

Tuesday, 14 October 2008

Why are we asking this now?

Nato and the US are ramping up the war on drugs in Afghanistan. American ground forces are set to help guard poppy eradication teams for the first time later this year, while Nato's defence ministers agreed to let their 50,000-strong force target heroin laboratories and smuggling networks.


Until now, going after drug lords and their labs was down to a small and secretive band of Afghan commandos, known as Taskforce 333, and their mentors from Britain's Special Boat Service. Eradicating poppy fields was the job of specially trained, but poorly resourced, police left to protect themselves from angry farmers. All that is set to change.

How big is the problem?

Afghanistan is by far and away the world's leading producer of opium. Opium is made from poppies, and it is used to make heroin. Heroin from Afghanistan is smuggled through Pakistan, Russia, iran and Turkey until it ends up on Europe's streets.

In 2008, in Afghanistan, 157,000 hectares (610 square miles) were given over to growing poppies and they produced 7,700 tonnes of opium. Production has soared to such an extent in recent years that supply is outstripping demand. Global demand is only about 4,000 tonnes of opium per year, which has meant the price of opium has dropped. in Helmand alone, where most of Britain's 8,000 troops are based, 103,000 hectares were devoted to poppy crops. if the province was a country, it would be the world's biggest opium producer.

In 2007, the UN calculated that Afghan opium farmers made about $1bn from their poppy harvests. The total export value was $4bn – or 53 per cent of Afghanistan's GDP.

Is it getting better or worse?

There was a 19 per cent drop in cultivation from 2007 to 2008, but bumper yields meant opium production only fell by 6 per cent. Crucially, the drop was down to farmers deciding not to plant poppies, and that was largely a result of a successful pre-planting campaign, led by strong provincial governors, in parts of the country that are relatively safe.

Only 3.5 per cent of the country's poppy fields were eradicated in 2008. High wheat prices and low opium prices are also a factor in persuading some farmers to switch to licit crops.

In Helmand, one of the most volatile parts of Afghanistan, production rose by 1 per cent as farmers invested opium profits in reclaiming tracts of desert with expensive irrigation schemes. Opium production was actually at its lowest in 2001. The Taliban launched a highly effective counter-narcotics campaign during their last year in power. They used a policy of summary execution to scare farmers into not planting opium. Many analysts attribute their loss of popular support in the south, which contributed to their defeat by US-led forces in late 2001, to this policy.

How are the drugs linked to the insurgency?

The Taliban control huge swaths of Afghanistan's countryside, where most of the poppies are grown. They tax the farmers 10 per cent of the farm gate value of their crops. Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, said the Taliban made about £50m from opium in 2007.

They also extort protection money from the drugs smugglers, for guarding convoys and laboratories where opium is processed into heroin. The UN and Nato believe the insurgents get roughly 60 per cent of their annual income from drugs. The Taliban and the drug smugglers also share a vested interest in undermining President Hamid Karzai's government, and fighting the international forces, which have both vowed to try and wipe out the opium trade.

What about corruption?

The vast sums of drugs money sloshing around Afghanistan's economy mean it is all too easy for the opium barons to buy off corrupt officials.

Most policemen earn about £80 a month. A heroin mule can earn £100 a day carrying drugs out of Afghanistan. Most Afghans suspect the corruption reaches the highest levels of government. President Karzai is reported to have called eradication teams to halt operations at the last minute for no apparent reason.

When an Afghan counter-narcotics chief found nine tonnes of opium in a former Helmand governor's compound, he was told not burn it by Kabul – but he claims he ignored the order.

President Karzai's brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, is widely rumoured to be involved in the drugs trade – an allegation he denies. The New York Times claimed US investigators found evidence that he had ordered a local security official to release an "enormous cache of heroin" discovered in a tractor trailer in 2004. Privately, Western security officials admit they suspect that a number of government ministers are drug dealers.

Where does that leave the international community?

Right across Afghanistan, the government is corrupt and Afghans are fed up. The police organise kidnappings. Justice is for sale. Violence is spreading and people don't feel safe. The progress promised in 2001 hasn't been delivered.

Education is a rare success. There are now more than six million children at school, including two million girls, compared with less than a million under the Taliban.

But the roads which link the country's main cities aren't safe. Taliban roadblocks are increasingly normal. UN convoys are getting hijacked.

A report published by 100 charities at the end of July warned violence has hit record highs, fighting is spreading into parts of the country once thought safe, and there have been an unprecedented number of civilian casualties this year.

General David McKiernan, the US commander of almost all the international forces in Afghanistan, insited to journalists at a press conference on Sunday that Nato isn't losing. The fact he had to say it suggest public perception is otherwise. He also said that everywhere he goes, everyone he speaks to is "uniformly positive" about the future. Those people must be cherry-picked.

Crime in the capital, Kabul, is rising. The Taliban broke 400 insurgents out of Kandahar jail this summer, and they attacked the provincial capital in Helmand last weekend. People are frustrated at the international community's failures and scared that the Taliban are coming back.

What does that mean for the future?

President Karzai has touted peace talks with the Taliban through Saudi intermediaries. The international community maintains it will support the Afghan government in any negotiations, but privately diplomats admit that if they opened talks tomorrow they would not start from a "perceived position of strength".

General David Petraeus is about to take command at CentCom, which includes Afghanistan, and he is expected to focus on churning out more Afghan soldiers and engaging tribes against the insurgents.

Meanwhile, in Pakistan, it remains to be seen whether Asif Ali Zardari will rein in his intelligence service and crack down on the Taliban safe havens in the Pakistani tribal areas, which they rely on to launch attacks in Afghanistan.

There are also elections on the horizon. The international community is determined that they must go ahead, despite the obvious security challenges, and anything the Afghan candidates do should be seen in the context of securing people who can deliver votes.

Does the war on drugs undermine the war on terror?

Yes

*Working to eradicate poppies will remove farmers' best source of income and turn them against Nato

*Using resources to fight against the entrenched poppy trade diverts them from the war with the Taliban

*Corruption in government means that battling opium turns the mechanism of the state against our forces


No

*In the end, an Afghanistan without opium production will be much less prone to the influence of the Taliban

*Money from the international drugs trade may find its way to terrorists outside of Afghanistan

*Removing the source of corruption will strengthen the country's institutions in the long term.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom