The Taliban have announced a nationwide ban on poppy cultivation in Afghanistan in a bold move that comes while most farmers are already harvesting their crop. The decision, if implemented strictly, could result in serious disruption in the country’s rural economy. The country, the largest producer of heroin, supplies almost 80 percent of the world’s total illicit opium.

“As per the decree of the supreme leader of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, all Afghans are informed that from now on, cultivation of poppy has been strictly prohibited across the country," Zabiullah Mujahid, the Taliban’s spokesperson, issued an order on Sunday released by the group’s supreme leader Mullah Hibatullah Akhundzada.

"If anyone violates the decree, the crop will be destroyed immediately and the violator will be treated according to the Sharia law," Taliban’s Ministry of Interior said in Kabul. The order also bars the production, use, and transportation of other narcotics.

Significantly, apart from heroin, the production of methamphetamine, popularly known as meth, has also grown in recent years in the country.

During their earlier ban in 2000, the Taliban had managed to bring down poppy cultivation by almost 90 percent before they were pushed out of power in December 2001 by the United States.  

Over the past four decades now, the poppy has become an integral part of the country’s informal rural economy, primarily due to the relatively stable income that it provides in a challenging time.

In the last two decades, the United States had spent over $7.6 billion on the poppy eradication program, without any success.

According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Afghanistan is the largest producer of opium, accounting for almost 80 percent of the world’s total supply. By 2018, the share of the illegal heroin trade in the country’s economy was around 11 percent, UNODC reported.

Taliban's possible objectives

Apart from drug eradication, the move likely came with a set of geopolitical considerations, especially winning goodwill — and chances of recognition—among the regional and western countries which remain concerned over the possible increase in the illegal drug trade.

The move, according to David Mansfield, an expert on Afghanistan and its narco economy, is an “attempt [by the Taliban] to recast the political debate”, possibly to divert attention from the things that the Taliban regime doesn’t want to talk about, like girls’ rights and education.

Mansfield, who is the author of the book, titled ‘A State Built on Sand: How Opium Undermined Afghanistan’, terms the ban, in a Twitter thread, “an attempt to put pressure on the international community to respond to what will be portrayed as the Taliban’s act of ‘altruism’ —banning drugs used by others: a favor to the world.”

The Taliban, through the move, he said, will also press the international community for development assistance for drug reduction.


Unlikely to be enforced strictly

Interestingly, the circumstances around the ban are remarkably similar to those in 2000, when the group first banned the crop: a pariah regime, international isolation, dearth of development assistance, and an almost collapsed economy.

However, there is one crucial difference, which could affect its implementation. Unlike the earlier ban, which was announced in August 2000, well before the planting season, this time the ban comes almost five months after the planting season.

Currently, most farmers who have invested big and even borrowed money against their future crop—a common practice in Afghanistan— are either already harvesting it or will soon begin.

Destruction of the standing crop, at a time when there are no other possible sources of income, especially in an almost collapsed economy, will most certainly result in widespread anger, especially in the country’s rural parts, a prime constituency of support for the group.

Considering these factors, and reported growing friction within the different factions in the group, it is highly unlikely that the Taliban would press hard in implementing the decision. However, the group’s possibility of engaging in cosmetic actions to impress the world can’t be ruled out.

(SAM)