LET'S CONSIDER BUYING AFGHAN OPIUM

Quite right - the Obama administration is gearing up to pressure the
Europeans to put more men in boots on the ground in Afghanistan. Quite
right - the Europeans don't want to engage in a war of attrition - a la
USSR in Afghanistan in the 1980s, or the United States in Vietnam a decade
and a half earlier. There is nothing worse than having to pull out with
your tail between your legs and confront the electorate with thousands of
needless deaths of their brave young.

The answer to this paradox is that the Europeans, using their nose as well
as their soldiers, should confront the issue of the Afghanistan poppy
crop, the one that is responsible for 90 percent of the heroin sold in
Europe and that funds over 80 percent of Taliban activity.

This brings me to a memorable conversation I had in Islamabad with
President General Pervez Musharraf two years ago (published in Prospect
Magazine, March 2007). He suggested that the West should introduce a
common agricultural policy on Afghanistan's poppies - in other words, to
do as both the EU and the United States do with certain agricultural
crops: buy them up with government money.

"Buying the crop is an idea one could explore," he told me, answering what
I had nervously thought was a provocative question. "Pakistan doesn't have
the money for it. We would need help from the United States or the United
Nations. But we could buy up the whole crop and destroy it. In that way
the poor growers would not suffer."

Buying the Afghan poppy crop was first suggested by the International
Council on Security and Development. The idea would solve two problems in
one blow. First, it would prevent the often-unwilling opium farmers from
being driven into the arms of the Taliban for protection and as willing
buyers and traffickers. Second, the crop could help the world, especially
the poorer parts in Asia and Africa, with their chronic shortage of
medical opiates.

Millions die each year in excruciating pain for want to relief. Death is
bad enough, but to die in extreme agony is the most frightening thing a
human being can face. India, Australia and Turkey (which was encouraged to
do so by the Americans since 1974) are the only countries allowed to grow
poppies under the supervisory authority of the World Health Organization.
Western countries buy most of these crops.

Needless to say, there are many practical problems with this idea. If the
price were set too high, it might encourage even more farmers to grow
opium poppies. Besides, however high the price, some UN agricultural
economists say that traffickers would simply outbid the government, safe
in the knowledge that a majority of recipients - the addicts - would foot
the bill. And if the price were not high enough, the farmers would
continue selling at least some of the crop on the black market. Even if a
premium did have to be paid, it would still be cheaper than the cost of
new troops and an escalation of the war.

But this ignores human nature, especially in an earnest Muslim nation
where everyone - including the once anti-drug Taliban - knows that
narcotics are strongly condemned by traditional Islamic teaching. Only
desperation has driven most farmers to poppy production. All things
considered, they would rather sell their crops to a government agency at,
say, today's going price, especially when they know that their product was
going to help people in pain.

Sartaj Aziz, a renowned agricultural expert and a former agriculture and
finance minister of Pakistan, wrote to Prospect Magazine saying that he
liked the idea of purchasing crops and that it should be tested on an
experimental basis in one of Afghanistan's poppy-laden areas. I discussed
many of these issues with Musharraf and his response was, "Look, let's
analyze it, let's cost it and see if it is practical."

According to a recent article in The New York Times by Bernd Debusmann, a
forthcoming paper by the former State Department official James Nathan
says the total cost of such a program might be as high as $2.5 billion
each year - not that much when compared with the $200 billion that the
United States has already spent on the Afghanistan war (and that doesn't
factor in NATO's contribution).

Such a policy would be far more effective in undermining both the Taliban
and Al-Qaeda than any number of new troops sent in for combat. But let
some of the troops arrive to help with the buying up of the crop, to make
sure there are no secret, unofficial diversions, and to police the
districts that are in compliance. US President Barack Obama has called for
new ideas on the world's seeming intractable problems. Well here's one.

Jonathan Power is a veteran foreign affairs commentator based in London.
THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration with the Common
Ground News Service (www.commongroundnews.org).