It boggles one's mind how twisted the official American logic is. The New York Times writes about the reluctance of NATO to eradicate the deadly crops and heroin laboratories in Afghanistan, explaining it by the chicaneries behind the formulations in the new NATO mandate and the concern about poor Afghan farmers 'toiling' in poppy fields.
'The drug trade (Afghanistan produces from 93 up per cent of the world heroin - H. S.) is estimated to account for about half of Afghanistan's meager economy, and some of the nation's poorest people, including farmers who toil in the poppy fields, are dependent on incomes that flow directly or indirectly from narcotics... Mr. Karzai has also opposed the forceful eradication of poppy crops, something that did not appear to be sanctioned by the new NATO mandate... According to the recent United Nations survey, 98 percent of Afghanistan's opium comes from seven provinces in the southwest, with no opium at all produced in half of the country's 34 provinces. The bulk of the NATO troops operating in the southwest come from the United States, Britain, Canada and Denmark... Together with the United States, Britain and Canada have already taken the heaviest casualties among the NATO nations fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda, with NATO troops who have died in the seven-year war now approaching 1,000, including more than 600 Americans. (New York Times, October 11, 2008) End quote.
Amazing! Thus the troops, stationed in Afghanistan, and in many ways causing the grim situation there, are the main sufferers and potential victims... Not hundreds of thousands of the young Russian, Tajikistani, Kirgizstani, Uzbekistani, Kazakhstani, etc. who have fallen victims to the narcoagression (in Russia in some years up to 100,000 people a year).
During more than seven years of occupation the what meager economy Afghanistan had has been ruined, the infrastructure destroyed, industries hamstrung. While under Taliban the opium production was kept low, during the NATO occupation Afghanistan has become a legalized narcostate, a corporation of heroin production and genocidal traffic.
The logic cleared from the hypocrisy seems to be as follows. What is the annual loss of 100,000 young representatives of low-priority nations in comparison with the risks for NATO soldiers and the stability of Afghan narcoecomony?
But the real rationale, as some see it, may lie deeper still. Was it not Allan Dulles and Co. who advocated the reduction of the number of Russians to some 30-50 mln? Was it not Margaret Thatcher who once mentioned that only 15 mln people were economically justified on the territory of the USSR? Was it not Bill Clinton who echoed her?... The logical link seems obvious - we are subject to partial eradication and partial colonization.
Below I tabulate the data, illustrating the dynamics of opium production during 2000-2007.
(from http://narkotiki.ru/ocomments_6613.html)
Sown areas of opium poppies (thousand hectares)
2000 - 82
2001 - 8
2002 - 74
2003 - 80
2004 - 131
2005 - 104
2006 - 165
2007 - 193
Amount of opium produced (ton)
2000 - 3300
2001 - 185
2002 - 3400
2003 - 3600
2004 - 4200
2005 - 4100
2006 - 6100
2007 - 8200
Equivalent to heroin amount (ton)
2000 - 330
2001 - 18,5
2002 - 340
2003 - 360
2004 - 420
2005 - 410
2006 - 610
2007 - 820
As we see, since 2001 - the moment of bringing the NATO and American troops into Afghanistan - the production of opiates and heroin has increased 2-2.5 times. There is a streamlined credit and financial system and well-developed warehousing logistics to support the production and storage of narcotics. According to recent data, over 1,000 ton of pure heroin are stored in Afghan warehouses to serve as an 'insurance fund', damping the seasonal fluctuations of poppy crops. It is not surprising that banks willingly credit the farmers, engaged in opium production, which shows the lack of any serious risks.
According to Viktor Ivanov, head of the Russian Federal Service of Narcotics Control, this fact needs a serious analysis from the geopolitical perspective; the same is true about using narcomoney to influence the economic, political and other areas of life on the post-Soviet territory, among other things, to boost terrorism in the Caucasus. The problem of narcotics is also named as a reason for NATO advancement to the former Soviet republics (Kirgizstan, Tajikistan, etc.)
Let me turn your attention to the situation in Russia, where I belong. While there was an insignificant percentage of drug addiction when the 'iron curtain' was firmly in place to shield the USSR and socialist states from 'bourgeois influence', during the 20 years which followed the addiction has grown dramatically. Now, according to official statistics, about 2 per cent of the Russian population abuse narcotics, most of them - the 'heavy' ones of the opium group. And as clinical practice shows, those who regularly take heroin die within 5-7 years. In Russia the annual number of the deceased addicts ranges from 30,000 to 100,000 (predominantly young people), which is several times more than the death toll of the 10-year-long war of the USSR in Afghanistan. The supermortality of drug addicts at their stable total number means the systematic hidden inflow of new addicts instead of those quitting by death. Their contingent fully renews every 6-7 years, and the recruiting of young people never stops. It is a hidden Moloch, day by day gorging the young population of Russia.
But those addicts who remain to live also prove to be lost for the society, are excluded from social life and get involved in a criminal activity, recruiting new and new people. As a rule, they act as retailers of narcotics, working for wholesalers to earn a dose and relieve the 'breaking'. The established number of people convicted for narcocriminal activity is comparable to the number of servicemen in the Russian Army.
It is noteworthy, that the use of narcotics in Russia exceeds that in the European Union 8-10 times. This also testifies, apart from the proximity of Russia to the narcostate, to the directed narcoagression into Russia. The three main northern narco-streams from Afghanistan pass through Central Asia and Kazakhstan and lead to the Moscow Region, Urals and Siberia.
The social and economic consequences of the narcotic criminality in Russia are obvious: asocial and antisocial behavior, truncated fates, unborn children, and negative childbirth statistics in the situation of ongoing depopulation of the country. There is not a single family in Russia, which hasn't been confronted in some way with the problem of narcotics - all of them have relatives or acquaintances whose children have become addicted or died of narcotics.
Under the circumstances it is very strange to read in the New York Times of October 2, 2008, on page A8:
'The commander, Gen. David D. McKiernan, made clear that international troops in Afghanistan were not going to eradicate opium poppy crops. Afghanistan is the world's top supplier of opium poppies, which are processed into heroin.
But by drawing a clear link between the narcotics trade and its role in the insurgency, General McKiernan was outlining what could be an important and expanding role for American and NATO troops as they seek to eliminate a source of money and weapons for the insurgency.
"I think there's a need for increased involvement in I.S.A.F. in assisting the Afghan government in counternarcotics efforts," said General McKiernan, commander of NATO's International Security Assistance Force, or I.S.A.F. "Where we can make a clear intelligence linkage between a narcotics dealer or a facility and the insurgency, I consider that a force protection issue, and we can deal with that in a military way."
Well, perhaps it is sensible from the military viewpoint to selectively destroy only the crops and laboratories associated with the insurgents, but is it humane to continue conniving at the opium production? At whose expense is the shaky well-being of Afghanistan achieved? And why not co-operate with the CIS states (in the first place Russia, Kirgizstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan) to resolve the situation? These issues await solutions.
No comments:
Post a Comment