
Poppy paradox: U.S. war in Afghanistan boosts terror funds
by Peter Dale Scott
—Guest Columnist—
(FinalCall.com) -- It’s a bitter irony: The largely successful
U.S. campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan is
resulting in an increase of funds for terrorists around the globe.
It is true, as President Bush has insisted, that global terrorism is
financed by the flow of illicit drugs. Yet by installing and rewarding a
coalition of drug-financed warlords in Kabul, the United States has
itself helped restore the flow of Afghan heroin to terrorist groups,
from the Balkans and Chechnya to Tajikistan, Pakistan and Kashmir.
Thanks to the U.S. intervention, Afghanistan will again supply up to
70 percent of the world’s heroin this year, 90 percent of the heroin
reaching Europe and even a part of the heroin reaching the United
States.
The Taliban successfully reduced opium production by over 90 percent,
even if only to maintain prices by restricting supply. As soon as they
were driven out, farmers—often at the instigation of local
warlords—began replanting their fields with opium. It is estimated that
the 2002 crop will be about 85 percent of the record-breaking 4,500
metric tons harvested in 1999.
The new Hamid Karzai regime introduced a token ban on production in
January. But lacking effective means of enforcing its decrees, the
central government has enforced the ban only selectively. It has also
been forced to accept the influence of local drug-tainted warlords, such
as Hazrat Ali in Nangarhar, and Gul Agha Sherzai, appointed governor of
Kandahar province.
The London Observer reported recently that, in order to stave
off rebellion against the weak central government, both Hazrat Ali and
Gul Agha, along with other warlords, "have been ‘bought off’ with
millions of dollars in deals brokered by U.S. and British intelligence."
The United States, while endorsing a drug-financed status quo, is not
happy about making such payments. On the contrary, some U.S. officers
suspect that Hazrat Ali, whose troops took part in the attack last
winter against al-Qaeda in the Tora Bora caves, secretly warned Osama
bin Laden of U.S. plans to capture him, and perhaps even allowed troops
to escort al-Qaeda fighters into Pakistan.
U.S. actions probably reflect its complex relations with Pakistan,
which regards both Gul Agha and Hazrat Ali as allies. For 20 years, the
complex of heroin-terror networks in Central Asia has been fostered by
Pakistan’s intelligence service, the ISI.
Since backing drug-trafficking mujahideen against the Soviet Union,
the ISI has had a vision of using the drug traffic to project its
influence beyond Afghanistan into Central Asia. Afghan opium and heroin
from the mujahideen during the 1980s corrupted not just the ISI itself,
but the whole of Pakistani society. Pakistan’s opium-heroin economy
reached at least half the size of its official one, and in terms of
exports may have surpassed it.
Since seizing power in 1999, General Musharraf has cracked down on
Pakistani terrorist groups, many of them formerly supported by the ISI,
and on the ISI itself. But he has had to proceed carefully, since the
goals of expanding Pakistani influence in Afghanistan and Kashmir are
supported by many in his government. Above all, he needs to ensure that
Afghan warlords traditionally friendly to Pakistan, such as Gul Agha and
Hazrat Ali, will maintain their influence in the new government, which
is largely dominated by the pro-Russian Tajik Northern Alliance.
This may explain why last November Gul Agha’s associate, Ayub Afridi—a
major Pakistani drug trafficker who served a short jail sentence in the
United States—was suddenly released from a Pakistani jail. He then moved
back to Afghanistan, allegedly to work with his old allies against the
Taliban.
Sources in Washington have suggested that behind the Bush decision to
tolerate the return of the Afghan drug traffic was the fear that
eliminating it might destabilize the Musharraf government and further
encourage ISI-linked extremists to overthrow him.
A simpler explanation is U.S. reluctance to take on further
responsibility for restoring the Afghan economy, and instead let drugs
do the job. A still more cynical possibility is that the Bush
administration wants in the short run to limit the embarrassing stories
of chaos and rebellion in Afghanistan, which could hurt the Republicans
in the November elections.
Whatever the reason, the revival of the Afghan opium economy is good
news for the terrorists from Kosovo to Kashmir, who have depended on it
since the connection was established with ISI encouragement in the
1980s.
This is particularly true of the Islamist revolutionaries in
Uzbekistan. These have for some time been allied with the ISI, even
while in 1999 they shifted their alliance from the Northern Alliance to
the Taliban.
Ultimately, the United States will have to choose between its two
conflicting policies in Central Asia: pursuing terrorists, or
accommodating to a drug-driven status quo.
(Scott is an author and former Canadian diplomat. His web page on
9/11 and Afghanistan can be found at socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/q.html.
This column was transmitted via Pacific News Service.)
|