A Reexamination of the Role of the Taliban in the Afghan Opium Trade

Introduction

The New York Times is up to its old tricks in misleading readers on the role of the Taliban in the Afghan opium trade. Under the headline “In Poppy War, Taliban Aim to Protect a Cash Crop”, the Times states:

So focused are the Taliban on securing this year’s opium poppy crop — and the support of the farmers tending it — that in the early days of their spring offensive in the south, they are targeting not only the officials trying to eradicate the plants, but also the tractors they use.

This year’s poppy crop, the Times continues, is

the product of the increased cooperation between poppy farmers and the militants they see as protectors of their economic interests, government officials say.

“This year there is more poppy cultivation in Helmand, especially in places where people have confiscated the government lands and in places that were desert,” said Daoud Ahmadi, the spokesman for the governor in Helmand Province. “The reason is that the Taliban promised and persuaded farmers to grow poppy and told them they would protect them.”

“In Helmand,” the Times explains, “the government has embraced eradication”, but

The program has been met with hostility by many local residents who say they are reduced to poverty without the income from the poppy crop. A study by the sociologist David Mansfeld [sic, ‘Mansfield’], a researcher for Tufts University, noted that families who grow poppies eat meat more frequently and are more likely to be able to afford to marry off their children — weddings often come with crippling costs in Afghanistan, where relatives far and near must be hosted and fed.

“No one wants to see his poppy field destroyed. A farmer is even ready to fight for his poppy field”, a merchant in Musa Qala told the Times. Further into the article, the Times states:

Complicating matters is the hold that poppy profits have on government officials. Local farmers say that eradication is selective, meaning that officials often exempt the fields of relatives or of people who bribe them sufficiently.

In Musa Qala, the police chief — who is known locally only as Koka — has a reputation as a ruthless fighter against the Taliban. He has made it a cause to destroy their poppy fields, but not necessarily those of others, like the policemen who work for him, said several local residents.

While only a small part of the total income from poppies goes to the Taliban — roughly 10 percent, according to estimates by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime — but that adds up to a lot in a $4 billion-plus harvest.

The article concludes by quoting Mr. Ahmadi, the spokesperson for the governor in Helmand, saying, “I do not think it will be possible for the eradication campaign to destroy all the poppy fields in Helmand…. And any person whose fields are destroyed, he is becoming Taliban.”

So, to review, the Times tells readers that the Taliban are “focused … on securing this year’s opium poppy crop”, and the reason “there is more poppy cultivation in Helmand”, according to Mr. Ahmadi, “is that the Taliban promised and persuaded farmers to grow poppy”, since the Taliban collects “roughly 10 percent” of “the total income from poppies”, which “adds up to a lot in a $4 billion-plus harvest.”

The problem with this narrative is that the characterization of the Taliban as a key driving force behind poppy cultivation is intentionally misleading, which can be shown by drawing on the Times’ own sources, which belie that characterization. Moreover, the Times does not only mislead by omission of key facts, but also lies outright about the amount of revenue the UNODC estimated the Taliban receives from the opium trade.

The first problem is that we are given contradictory information, which the Times makes no effort to reconcile. Are farmers growing poppy because the Taliban encouraged them to in order to profit from the trade, or are they just taking advantage of the protection the Taliban offers them? There is a disconnect between Mr. Ahmadi’s assertion that farmers had to be persuaded by the Taliban to grow poppies and other information in the article, including the merchant’s remark that farmers would be willing to take up arms to protect their crops, and Mr. Ahmadi’s own comment that farmers whose poppies are eradicated are “becoming Taliban.”