A piece by The Guardian’s Simon Jenkins prompted an interesting debate on the subject of the so-called “War on Drugs” (an earlier variation on the seemingly endless “War on Terror”). The particular trigger was the assertion that “In the south (of Afghanistan) the British have no strategy except to re-enact the Zulu wars at exorbitant cost in money and lives. The Helmand campaign is magnificent but mad.” Simon Jenkins was talking about the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq, rather than the war on drugs, but our view, as non-experts, was that a solution to one war (on drugs) could be an, admittedly partial, solution to another (in Afghanistan). Without degrees in development economics, international politics or the history of US drug policy, we came up with two workable strategies:
1. Instead of bombing opium fields (specifically in Afghanistan), buy the opium and use it for legitimate medical purposes. The farmers would have a steady income, don’t feel punished by the government (or the West for that matter), and are not drawn into criminal activity by the “drug lords”. A recent article, also in the Guardian, lamented the shortage of opium for medical purposes at the same time that piles of it were being burnt up in Afghanistan.
2. Instead of bombing coca fields (in Central America), encourage the farmer to grow coffee, bananas, whatever, and pay a – and here’s the key part – fair price for those products. Growing coca / manufacturing cocaine will then seem less attractive, not least because growing coffee doesn’t normally come with the built in risk of being bombed by various air forces.
There we are; two people with nothing but a bit of common sense, with a plan with a clear outcome that is better than the one we currently have (an endless “war” with no clear achievable end). So, to paraphrase Simon Jenkins, how come “London's finest minds joined with those of Washington” cannot consider such a plan and make it happen?
If anyone can see a fundamental flaw in this reasoning, I’d be delighted to hear it. Sure, it won’t be easy, it won’t be done in a day, but it’s got to be better than what we have now.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
The appliance of common sense
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Yes - very interesting. The war on drugs is a multi faceted issue with complex powers at play. The developing countries producing coca leaf are tied up with the international politics, they have to demonstrate that they are committed to the rhetoric, however pointless, of the 'Western' governments. Therefore they are trapped in an endless cycle of destroying the coca production and increasingly the cocaine production. Farmers are crying out for a cash crop that will pay a better wage, however they still earn up to nine times the price of coffee etc., by producing coca-leaf.
In Afghanistan, Opium production is well suited to the harsh, arid climate. The war on Afghanistan, partly hailed as a war on drugs to appeal to 'middle England', has seen a mass destruction of what little infrastructure the country previously enjoyed. Dams that are repaired in provinces such as Helmund, are quickly destroyed. With opium production there is virtually no requirement for irrigation, cold storage or quick transportation. This makes it the ideal crop of a war torn nation.
To really tackle these issues, America and Britain need o explore the drugs policies that enable these destructive cycles to continue, however it is arguable that with the multi billion investment in the war on drugs, this is a step they would be reluctant to take.
Post a Comment