Dion on Afghanistan

[Edward Campbell]

Here is M. Dion’s first statement on Afghanistan in his new role as Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061204.wqpdion1204/BNStory/National/home

Speaking after his caucus meeting that morning, Mr. Dion also called for an overarching plan for Afghanistan, focusing on ways to beat the opium trade.

“What we are doing now is not working,” he said. “I have suggested that we need — with the 35 other nations involved in Afghanistan — a kind of Marshall plan for Afghanistan in focusing especially about what to do with the crop. As long as it's illicit activity, giving a lot of money to the warlords (who are) many times close to the Taliban, we are in a very, very difficult situation.

“We will try to propose to the government an approach that makes sense and hopefully we'll play a role that will be positive in Afghanistan.”

I applaud him for wanting to stay the course.  How else can we ”play a a role that will be positive in Afghanistan” if we do not stay in Afghanistan.

He may also be on the right track re: the opium trade.  The problem is, most emphatically, NOT the opium crop.  The problem is what happens to the crop after the harvest.  The current NATO plan, which appears terminally stupid, destructive and dangerous to Canadian soldiers, is to punish poor Afghan farmers because American, Bulgarian and Canadian kids want to abuse drugs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4312557.stm

… aid agencies are concerned that current US strategy calls for the destruction of up to 30,000 hectares of poppy fields over the coming year - about 25% of the area cultivated in 2004.

It is pouring millions into funding "eradication teams" to cut down poppy crops.

Some have accused the US and British governments of secretly spraying already in eastern and south-western Afghanistan as part of this policy, although both have strenuously denied it … Nonetheless, aerial spraying is still an option US anti-drugs officials are considering for next year. And they insist that some eradication has to take place this year.

According to one development expert who did not want to be named: "The US is starting another Colombia-style war on drugs here" …

This is institutional madness; propagated to pacify the home audience – ”the lousy job of parenting you have been doing might be fixed if we abuse these poor Afghans and, in the process, drive them into the arms of the enemy.”

The Afghan farmers have to be paid, by NATO, for their opium crops, which may be one of the few things that will grow reasonably well in that poor, arid place.  Then the crop belongs to NATO and we can burn it, sell it to legitimate pharmaceutical companies, etc.

So, 2 cheers for Stéphane Dion, so far.

 

[Pikache]

You gotta give the afghan farmers a viable alternative to poppy cultivation before you go on and destroying their crop.

Or else, you're going to just piss them off and more of them will turn to Taliban and warlords for protection and against Karzai govt and NATO.

Gotta keep their belly full somehow

 

[BKells]

How about a few Canadian biopharmaceutical firms open up shop in Kabul and start using the plentiful supply of poppies to mass-produce opiate-derived pain medication, namely morophine? I think Afghanistan has a significant comparative advantage in this sector which is just waiting to be tapped. Not to mention the possibility of harvesting the wild marijuana fields to market (legal) medicinal marijuana to consumers in Canada and the U.S.

These are just two examples of a legal and lucrative option for utilizing natural plants which have both illicit and legitimate uses.

 

[Good2Golf]

Use opium for pharmaceuticals, start transitioning crops to higher-value-than-wheat-even-if-not-as-much-as-opium, such as Safron, and then reinject the monies through the central government for distribution to all regions in support of the Afghan National Development Strategy (http://www.ands.gov.af/main.asp)...

G2G

 

[Cloud Cover]

How about a few Canadian biopharmaceutical firms open up shop in Kabul and start using the plentiful supply of poppies to mass-produce opiate-derived pain medication, namely morophine? I think Afghanistan has a significant comparative advantage in this sector which is just waiting to be tapped. Not to mention the possibility of harvesting the wild marijuana fields to market (legal) medicinal marijuana to consumers in Canada and the U.S.

These are just two examples of a legal and lucrative option for utilizing natural plants which have both illicit and legitimate uses.

Afghanistan does not have the proper legal regime and supporting infrastructure to protect pharma development and production. It would be nice if they did, but their system of laws has not yet evolved to that level.  This type of legal development is something that Canada could really do a lot more of.

 

[GAP]

Afghanistan does not have the proper legal regime and supporting infrastructure to protect pharma development and production. It would be nice if they did, but their system of laws has not yet evolved to that level.  This type of legal development is something that Canada could really do a lot more of.

So why does not Canada support the purchase, transport and development of the raw product to produce the product until it can be transfered back to Afghanistan?

 

[brihard]

How about a few Canadian biopharmaceutical firms open up shop in Kabul and start using the plentiful supply of poppies to mass-produce opiate-derived pain medication, namely morophine? I think Afghanistan has a significant comparative advantage in this sector which is just waiting to be tapped. Not to mention the possibility of harvesting the wild marijuana fields to market (legal) medicinal marijuana to consumers in Canada and the U.S.

These are just two examples of a legal and lucrative option for utilizing natural plants which have both illicit and legitimate uses.

Yes, but that would make sense- which automatically eliminates it from being a viable option.

I've looked into this myself out of curiosity. Apparently the total Afghan opium crop is roughly equivalent to most of the world demand for pharmaceutical opiates. Coincidentally (?), high strength pain medications are quite expensive. Perhaps some supply and demand could be matched up here.

Another option would include NATO simply purchasing the crops outright - it's not like the farmers see much of the cash anyway - and then just disposing of it. The farmers wouldn't care; they still get their money.

Alternatively, internationally funded subsidies for more traditional crops could help ease them away from drugs. Key to this would be investment in better irrigation infrastructure, and access to better seed stock. Part of the problem is that a lot of the farmers lost sufficient assets in the conflicts there that they haven't the 'start-up' capital for profitable farming of benign crops. There's a lot that could be done if proper infrastructure is built; 'teach a man to fish' and all that...

 

[NL_engineer]

He may also be on the right track re: the opium trade.  The problem is, most emphatically, NOT the opium crop.  The problem is what happens to the crop after the harvest.  The current NATO plan, which appears terminally stupid, destructive and dangerous to Canadian soldiers, is to punish poor Afghan farmers because American, Bulgarian and Canadian kids want to abuse drugs.

It will not do much to the international drug triad.  If we can completely stop them from growing opium poppies, some poor farmer in another country in the region will.

Thee was an article in SOF a while back about this; I'll se if I can find it the weekend.

 

[probum non poenitet]

Another option would include NATO simply purchasing the crops outright - it's not like the farmers see much of the cash anyway - and then just disposing of it. The farmers wouldn't care; they still get their money.

I don't know what a farmer's crop is worth there ... my failing brain recalls a figure of $6,000 for a typical opium crop. Is that out to lunch?

Hell, even if it was much more, it seems a simple and shockingly cheap program to implement?

"Here's a cheque for $10,000, excuse us while we burn your poppies. P.S. we'll pay you $12,000 if you grow wheat next year. Thanks for coming out."

Even if it costs you ... let's say ... $100 million a year ... replacing equipment, ammo, and lets not mention lives, can add up to a lot more pretty quickly.

You can't buy friends, but you can sure as hell rent them.

 

[Kirkhill]

I don't know what a farmer's crop is worth there ... my failing brain recalls a figure of $6,000 for a typical opium crop. Is that out to lunch?

.......
You can't buy friends, but you can sure as hell rent them.

Lessee ....at 6K we are looking at the price of 2-3 155mm HE or for the price of an Excalibur round we could buy something between 5 and 16 crops.  Assuming the Excalibur costs something between $30,000 and $100,000.

That would probably rent a village for a year or so.  I wonder how many friends an Excalibur buys.  (Not saying they're not necessary and shouldn't be bought or employed - just comparing is all) 

 

[geo]

One of the problems is that growing poppies / opium is that it requires very little water and almost no care - till it comes time to bring in the crop.

there is a problem with water.  Soviets went around and destroyed centuries old aqueduct / distribution system.  Most afghans don't have much water and regular crops need water - lots of water.

At present - they don't have the privilege of having to make a choice between one or the other.

 

[Kirkhill]

geo - Who is making it a priority to refurb that water storage and redistribution system?

 

[Edward Campbell]

One of the problems is that growing poppies / opium is that it requires very little water and almost no care - till it comes time to bring in the crop.

there is a problem with water.  Soviets went around and destroyed centuries old aqueduct / distribution system.  Most afghans don't have much water and regular crops need water - lots of water.

At present - they don't have the privilege of having to make a choice between one or the other.

That's why I said this:

...
The Afghan farmers have to be paid, by NATO, for their opium crops, which may be one of the few things that will grow reasonably well in that poor, arid place.  Then the crop belongs to NATO and we can burn it, sell it to legitimate pharmaceutical companies, etc.
...

It is better that the farmer grow something and sell it than just receive international 'welfare.'

It may be necessary to assassinate a few drug lords - and I recognize that there will be mistake and a few innocent civilians will be killed, too, as they already are - to make the process work.  We, NATO/ISAF, including Canada, have people who can do that sort of thing.

Then we buy the crops and do with them what we can - including making pharmaceuticals in Afghanistan.

 

[geo]

Edward!
You young idealist fool!
The drug lords are so "in" with the Taliban it's not funny.
If the international drug cartells see their Opium supply chain dry up, they too will be financing / encouraging the Afghan people to rise up..... or else!

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

    The Taliban is "in" with the drug lords, but who cares?  We are out to destroy the Taliban and the drug lords, by cutting these disease bearing parasites off from the body of the Afghan people, so our efforts would necessarily have to remove both, or have the effect of choosing parasites, rather than eliminating them.  The drug lords make HUGE proffits from the Opium crops, but drug lords don't fight our patrols, young fanatics and cheaply bought farm kids do.  We can actually pay the farmers far more for their crop than the drug lords do, as we are not intent on making a monetary profit from the venture. 
    We are Canadians, our wheat boards, dairy boards, and even egg boards regulate prices and production of commodities, and have for generations paid farmers for crops that we intend NOT to reach the market.  Above all western nations, we should have no problem with subsidizing the poor Afghan farmers to gain monopoly of the Opium crop, and finance the redevelopment of the Opium lands to other cash crops. 
    Unlike the Americans, we do not have to show a profit, as we are not actually there to enrich our cabinet ministers through the reconstruction of the nation, we are actually there to help the Afghan people, and thus remove a dangerous terrorist sanctuary.  Dion has a point; our military operations are necessary to make a solution possible, but the solution must address the reorientation of the commercial/agricultural economy of Afghanistan, or it will fail.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, from today’s (6 Dec 06) Globe and Mail is M. Dion’s latest musings on Afghanistan.  The article is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisons of the Copyright Act:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061206.wdion06/BNStory/National/home

Dion to push for Afghan Marshall Plan

CAMPBELL CLARK AND BRIAN LAGHI

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — New Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said Tuesday he'll have little patience for the rising death toll of Canadian troops in Afghanistan unless there is progress in making that country more secure.

Mr. Dion said Canada must push its allies to build a Marshall Plan to rebuild the economy of the strife-torn country, because the current strategy of focusing on combat against the Taliban is not achieving results.

“I cannot give a deadline, but I will not have a lot of patience if I see that we are risking the lives of our soldiers and civilians without any result for the security of the people of Afghanistan,” Mr. Dion said in an interview with The Globe and Mail.

“It's an assessment I will do day after day, but I want a result.”

Mr. Dion said the Canadian presence in Afghanistan means Canada's military cannot contribute in other parts of the world, so it must be effective.

A professional review needs to be done, he said, and Canada must push all nations involved in Afghanistan to assemble a major rebuilding and economic development plan.

“Can we have a kind of Marshall Plan as we have done in Europe, in Japan, in Singapore, in Taiwan, in so many countries before that?” he asked. “We need to stop being neo-conservative. You need to believe in the role of the government to help an economy to be built. For that we need a Liberal government.”

A key problem in the nation, he said, is the proliferation of the opium poppy crop which now makes up half of the Afghan economy, and provides money for the Taliban's operations. Canadian troops can't just focus on fighting Taliban militants who slip over a porous border with Pakistan, he said.

“There's no use for us to try to kill the Taliban in every corner of every mountain and to risk the lives of our soldiers in this way,” he said.

The Liberal government committed troops to Kandahar because they were told Canada was needed for a transition from a U.S. mission to a North Atlantic Treaty Organization operation, he said, but Prime Minister Stephen Harper extended the Canadian presence to 2009 without explaining what the mission would be.

Mr. Dion had harsh words for that move, saying Mr. Harper should have obtained the prior agreement of other nations to contribute more.

“Why he didn't make the first step [and say], ‘If I stay two years more, I want to know what you guys will do'?” Mr. Dion asked. “He did it for partisan reasons. To embarrass us, to divide us in the House, when it was such a dangerous and important reason for the country.”

Still, Mr. Dion said he would not abruptly pull the Canadian troops because that would further unsettle Afghanistan. “How would they feel if, in doing that, without any preparation, you are increasing the danger of the population,” he said. “It's not easy to get out.”

In his first days, Mr. Dion has stressed a political divide between his party and the Conservatives. But, speaking in a hoarse and cracking voice in the Opposition Leader's Parliament Hill office after the most eventful week of his political career, he took a go-slow attitude to the next election, making no threats to defeat Mr. Harper's minority government soon.

Mr. Dion ran his campaign on an environmental platform and argues that, unless the Tories are replaced early next year, Canada will not be able to meet the 2008 targets under the Kyoto Protocol. But he said he will not rush an election so they can be met, and if Canada misses the first targets, he would redouble efforts so later targets can be met, he said.

The Liberals remain unorganized and underfunded for an election campaign, particularly in Quebec, and many Liberals have questioned whether Mr. Dion can make gains there.

Mr. Harper has promised to lay out a solution to the so-called “fiscal imbalance” with the provinces — a touchstone issue in Quebec — in the next budget. But Mr. Dion has refused to use the term, despite its symbolism in the province.

Yesterday Mr. Dion said he does not know whether he will be against Mr. Harper's fiscal proposal, because he might favour it if it centres on equalization payments, for example.

But he said he is not willing to bandy around the term if it is unclear — and he accused Mr. Harper of seeking short-term political gain by adopting vague symbols favoured by Quebec nationalists.

“We need to get out of symbolic politics. When you accept to go to symbolic politics in order to look good in the coverage of the day after, it's for what purpose? We need to be sincere. I would not be sincere if I said to you I know what that means.

“I know what is the game of the separatists around this word, though: It is to give the sense to Quebeckers that Canada is unfair. And they are using that this way.”

The good news is that Stéphane Dion is not trying to outrun Jack Layton by calling for an immediate withdrawal with honour.

The bad news is that M. Dion seems (genuinely?) unaware of the fact that much progress IS being made – but maybe that’s Prime Minister Harper’s fault, too.  (See: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/53964/post-491225.html#msg491225 for critical comments by BGen Fraser and partisan political blame mongering by Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal defence critic and oxygen-thief-in-chief.)

There is some collateral bad news: M. Dion, like most Canadians, is abysmally ignorant of Canadian history.  Why else mention the Marshall Plan when there is a better Canadian example at hand?  Gen. George C. Marshall’s US led reconstruction plan was, without doubt, as Churchill said, an act of historic unselfishness – but so was the Canadian conceived and led Colombo Plan which laid the foundation for, inter alia, India’s current success.  The Colombo Plan was the work of a great Canadian, a great Québecer and a great Liberal: then foreign minister, later prime minister Louis St Laurent.  One would think a Canadian, Québecer and Liberal would want to use that example instead of cozying up to the Americans.  Maybe M. Dion is just too busy to think a whole lot; maybe he just doesn’t know a whole lot; I fear he just doesn’t care a whole lot.


Edit: typo

 

[observor 69]

Aside from complaints that the good news of Canadians works isn't getting out I can't get past this nagging doubt that the big picture in Afghanistan is not good. I know you are aware of the  problems  I could run down opium, Pakistan, NATO indecisive dithering etc. The message I get is the West must contribute more troops and treasure if this nation is to gain a state of stable self determination. This is not at the moment what is happening in-spite of Harper's "happy news" from Lativa of increased support. The tone of Dion's statement yesterday is Canada must not continue to make sacrifice without the necessary support from other nations for an achievable goal.

 

[GAP]

I think part of the perceived problem is the Americans. With Bush taking a sh*&kicking in the press and from the Democrats, it's "sinking ship/rat time", get out as best you can.

Canadians don't know/don't care that we are not in Iraq, but the NDP and Liberal hype and drama queen stuff have hit a resonant note with the average citizen, to the point that they think the soldiers are all dieing over there and this is a Bush war, so we should bring them home. Anything else they either don't want to know/care, they feel smug about their righteous action of doing/learning nothing, and they have made a decision...."bring them home from Iraq!!!....Afghanistan....same thing isn't it?"

 

[vonGarvin]

"New Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said Tuesday he'll have little patience for the rising death toll of Canadian troops in Afghanistan unless there is progress in making that country more secure."

This is a telling statement.  Stéphane Dion is not saying he won't tolerate a rising death toll there.  He is saying that without progress, he'll have little patience.  Information is power, and this guy is clever.  Suppose there is an election.  Suppose the liberals win a majority.  Suppose Mr. Dion is then PM.  Now suppose that as PM, he announces that we are indeed staying in the same mission.  Critics could cry out "But you said we were coming home!".  Then Mr. Dion could say "Ah, but we are making progress in making the country more secure!  I said it.  Check out the globe from December 2006!  The Liberals under The Great Jean Chretien put us there, The Great Paul Martin continued the mission and now I continue it.  Aren't we liberals awesome?"


Now, suppose the country falls to poo, there are hundreds killed daily and he pulls out.  He could then say "We aren't making progress.  The Conservatives under Stephen Harper are to blame!  Aren't we liberals awesome?"

The sad part is, people would believe it.

 

[Kirkhill]

"Success has a thousand fathers.  Failure is an orphan."

The Liberals want/need to be seen as fathers..........even though some might see them as mothers.