Prodi buys drugs

[tuscanhills]

I read today that Prodi is being urged to actively pursue a plan under which the world's rich nations would buy Afghanistan's opium production. The idea is that by taking the country's huge opium harvest out of the hands of drug traffickers, Taliban insurgents in the country would lose their main source of funding.

It's an interesting & much debated topic in the UK; how can we convince the local farmers to turn away from a lucrative cash crop...one that's harmful to everyone (apart from the farmers) and controlled by the Taliban.....

[liketheroman]

I know this does not mean much to an old marxist like 'prodes' but dare I suggest that increasing demand just increases supply

[NickZ]

Only if you increase the number of farmers,farms etc.

Of course they could just stop the war on drugs and that would cause the prices to collapse.

[Karina Walderson]

Agree. It would encourage a double crop situation overnight, with a minimum 100% guaranteed market open to suppliers for at least half of the increased crop production.

[liketheroman]

Well there is an almost infinite amount of land and people to cultivare so I do not think increasing production would be an issue

Stopping the war on drugs would affect the price but then you suddenly have massively improved and increased channels to market so you make more anyway

[adriatica]

prodi is suggesting anything at the moment to keep his allies in line to support his so called ...or italies foreign policy....

nice title line...had me going at least for a few secs until i read the contents...

[giovanni]

In war, you have to cut off the enemies supplies/resourses.
When you CLAIM to be fighting for the people of a region, somehow you
need to make compromises.

OPIUM has ALWAYS been grown in the region, rightly or wrongly the first
step is to take control of the resourses [opium] It is impossible to just
distroy it both geographically and local economy wise.and the fact that
local resentment would become greater too.

As daft as the idea sounds, it is very practical.

The farmers get a good price for their product, which you link the buying off
of them to agreeing to grow other less profitable products alongside.

You also cut off a large chunk of the talibans income,as well as breaking links
and support for them from farmers who have had no choice but to grow
stuff they can make a living from.

What other options are there.?

[Relaxed]

Govanni has put the argument which is being discussed in the European Parliament - it isn't just Prodi.

I think the 'local resentment' (by the farmers in Afghanistan) is the issue which (in particular) the centre left European coaltions are looking at. If you are a farmer in an area of the country where the NATO troops are 'in charge' you get your fields torched, whereas if you are in a Taliban controlled area you get cash for your crop. In that situation the farmers where NATO are present are unlikely to feel very cooperative - even if they hate the Taliban, and also have no income to live on.

It is all very well to suggest they grow something other than opium, and perhaps with time, and the farmers cooperation, that can be acheived: but for governments to buy Afghani opium isn't as crazy an idea as knee-jerk headline writers would have you believe.

[liketheroman]

Mussolini wrote a letter to Hitler that said something like 'you cannot keep delaying the revolution'. He was basically saying expedience is all well and good (in this case he was critical of I think Ribbentrop's agreement with Molotov) but you cannot keep being expedient, the revolution or objective must come (in this case it was about wiping Bolshevism of the earth) sooner rather than later.

In this case, is the revolution not the destruction of the poppy fields forever? Will leaving the fields alone and doling out money garner more respect and cooperation for the allies? I really do wonder and you could almost start a discussion on Macchiavelli's Prince. Or is it more like leaving a tip in a French restaurant - you are ridiculed and considered soft in the head.

[giovanni]

Originally Posted by liketheroman

Mussolini wrote a letter to Hitler that said something like 'you cannot keep delaying the revolution'. He was basically saying expedience is all well and good (in this case he was critical of I think Ribbentrop's agreement with Molotov) but you cannot keep being expedient, the revolution or objective must come (in this case it was about wiping Bolshevism of the earth) sooner rather than later.

In this case, is the revolution not the destruction of the poppy fields forever? Will leaving the fields alone and doling out money garner more respect and cooperation for the allies? I really do wonder and you could almost start a discussion on Macchiavelli's Prince. Or is it more like leaving a tip in a French restaurant - you are ridiculed and considered soft in the head.

there is a saying, if looking to resolve a problem that when you have
exhausted all possibilities, then whatever is left has to be the solution.
No matter how improberble.

Infact very many great men, and women have been ridiculed and thought of
as soft in the head, usually by those that were.....