Downward Spiral

Downward Spiral
Banning Opium in Afghanistan and Burma
TNI Drugs & Conflict Debate Paper 12
June 2005

Download PDF

Opium farmers in Afghanistan and Burma are coming under huge pressure as local authorities implement bans on the cultivation of poppy. Banning opium has an immediate and profound impact on the livelihoods of more than 4 million people. These bans are a response to pressure from the international community. Afghan and Burmese authorities alike are urging the international community to accompany their pressure with substantial aid.

For political reasons, levels of humanitarian and alternative development aid are very different between the two countries. The international community has pledged several hundred millions for rural development in poppy growing regions in Afghanistan. In sharp contrast, pledged support that could soften the crisis in poppy regions in Burma is less than $15 million, leaving an urgent shortfall.

Opium growing regions in both countries will enter a downward spiral of poverty because of the ban. The reversed sequencing of first forcing farmers out of poppy cultivation before ensuring other income opportunities is a grave mistake. Aggressive drug control efforts against farmers and small-scale opium traders, and forced eradication operations in particular, also have a negative impact on prospects for peace and democracy in both countries.

In neither Afghanistan nor Burma have farmers had any say at all in these policies from which they stand to suffer most. It is vital that local communities and organisations that represent them are given a voice in the decision-making process that has such a tremendous impact on their livelihoods.

Contents

• Editorial
• Banning Opium in Afghanistan. The Changed Rules of Engagement
• Lessons from the Taliban Ban
• Jihad Against Poppies
• Getting the Job Done
• Competing Structures and Interests
• Contradictions in the Field
• A Humane and Sustainable Approach
• Banning Opium in Burma (Myanmar)
• Enterering a Downward Spiral
• Impact on Rural Livelihoods
• Alternative Livelihoods
• Change in SPDC Leadership
• International Law Enforcement
• Renewed Fighting at the Border
• Beyond the Deadline
• References

Editorial

In Afghanistan and Burma, the two largest opium producers in the world, local authorities are implementing bans on the cultivation of poppy.

On 26 June 2005, on the International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Drug Trafficking, the opium ban comes into force in the Wa region in northern Burma. No poppy planting will be allowed from this day on. In Afghanistan the 2005 harvest was already disrupted through coercive pressure on farmers not to plant poppy and some fields were forcefully eradicated of those who did not comply.

In Afghanistan and Burma combined, 4.3 million people are directly involved in the opium economy. Many more are indirectly dependent on income generated on the illicit market. Banning opium has an immediate and profound impact on livelihoods. In Nangarhar province in Afghanistan early signs indicate one of the responses is migration from former poppy areas to the provincial capital or into Pakistan. Experiences from the Taliban opium ban back in 2001 showed similar patterns. In the case of the Kokang region in Burma, where a ban was implemented in 2003, more than a quarter of the population left the region. Other responses include households selling off livestock and land, withdrawal of children from school, and abandonment of health services.

"We are under huge pressure from China, Thailand and the US", says Vice-Chairman of the Wa Central Authority, Xiao Min Liang. "If we do not do something to stop opium production nobody wants to have anything to do with us". These bans are a response to pressure from the international community, worried about heroin flowing into their countries, the spread of HIV/AIDS and, in the case of Afghanistan, about possible financing of terrorist groups from drugs money.

Afghan and Burmese authorities alike urge the international community to accompany their pressure with substantial aid. "We are doing our bit and it is hurting us, donors must do their bit", the Nangarhar governor emphasised. "We will comply with international pressure, but please give us a chance for survival", pleaded Ngo Shui of the United Wa State Army.

Levels of humanitarian and alternative development aid are very different between the two countries. The international community has pledged significant funds for the reconstruction of Afghanistan, about $4 billion per year. Several hundred millions of those funds are available for rural development in poppy growing regions in 2005/6.

In sharp contrast, pledged support for development in the Kokang and Wa regions in Burma, undertaken by UNODC in partnership with other UN agencies and NGOs, does not exceed $15 million, including emergency food assistance and malaria and HIV/AIDS prevention, leaving an urgent shortfall of a similar amount just for projects already planned.

The main reasons for this discrepancy are political. While Afghanistan is an important partner in the US-led war against terror, the US and the EU have advocated a policy of isolation and sanctions against the Burmese military government. They have also have restricted development assistance, with some exception in the field of humanitarian aid.

Opium growing regions in both countries will enter into a downward spiral of poverty because of the ban. The reversed sequencing of first forcing farmers out of poppy cultivation before ensuring other income opportunities is a grave mistake. According to the World Bank, "there is a moral, political and economic case for having alternative livelihoods programs in place before commencing eradication". If they are not even accompanied by significant aid, the reductions will simply not be sustainable.

Aggressive drug control efforts against farmers and small-scale opium traders, and forced eradication operations in particular, also have a negative impact on prospects for peace and democracy in both countries.

In neither Afghanistan nor Burma have farmers had any say at all in these policies from which they stand to suffer most. It is vital that local communities and organisations that represent them are given a voice in the decision-making process which has such a tremendous impact on their livelihoods.