In the countdown to the June 30-July 1 UN-convened meeting in Qatar on Afghanistan (of the Afghan special envoys from some 25 nations), two voices representing the “Washington Consensus” have come out strongly against potential donor nations contributing aid to Afghan farmers complying with the Kabul ban on growing opium poppy. “Let the poor farmers grow dope” is the message in a June 20 posting by U.S. Institute of Peace so-called Afghan expert William Byrd PhD, headlined, “As Taliban Poppy Ban Continues, Afghan Poverty Deepens.” The USIP is a Congressionally-chartered entity. Last year Byrd also attacked the Taliban’s 2022 ban on Afghan opium poppy cultivation, which, until the ban, poisoned the world with 80% of all opium and heroin.
What is Dr. Byrd’s argument defending menticide? His four points are: 1) foreign aid to Afghan farmers “is not sustainable” given how weak the country is; 2) anti-drug “enforcement will prove increasingly difficult”; 3) “political tensions” will grow if the ban on opium poppy continues; and 4) “so-called alternative livelihoods projects have not worked in the past” and will not now.
On June 21, a Washington Post article went even further, asserting that alternative crops to opium poppy, such as grapes, vegetables, nuts, and Afghanistan’s famous pomegranates, are no longer feasible, because climate change in Afghanistan has been so severe! The Post article headline proclaims: “Taliban’s Opium Ban in Afghanistan Imperiled by Climate Change,” with an opening assertion: “Prolonged droughts attributed to climate change are making it hard for Afghans to grow other field crops and fruits, but hardy opium poppies can still thrive.”
