Contrary to what the New York Times suggests, the UNODC report gives no indication that the reason cultivation was cut back had anything whatsoever to do with any kind of direction or control over the crop by the Taliban.
The implications that the Taliban group itself grows the crop and is involved in trafficking are also misleading. According to the UNODC, the Taliban’s profits from the trade come principally from ushr, a 10 percent tax on all agricultural crops, and from offering protection for traffickers involved in moving the opium.
David Mansfield is an independent consultant who has advised governments and organizations such as the World Bank on policy and issues relating to the Afghan opium trade. Mr. Mansfield told Foreign Policy Journal, “Ushr is charged on all agricultural produce and traditionally goes to the mullah for his services to the community. There are reports that this is being absorbed by ‘the Taliban’ – which is not a monlith.” He added that another situation which occurs is half the tax going to the mullah and the other 5 percent to the Taliban.
Thomas Pietschmann, a research officer with the UNODC Statistics and Surveys Section who is credited in the 2008 report, told the Journal that an estimated $50-70 million is made by warlords and Taliban from the farmers. An additional $200-400 million is made from the traffickers. But, he explained, “We do not have any good idea of how this income is divided up between warlords and Taliban.”
Mr. Pietschmann also confirmed to the Journal that, while they did profit from ushr and from offering security, “We also have not seen strong indications of much direct exporting of opiates by the Taliban.”
In commentary attached to the UNODC report, Mr. Costa asks, “Who collects this money? Local strong men. In other words, by year end, war-lords, drug-lords and insurgents will have extracted almost half a billion dollars of tax revenue from drug farming, production and trafficking.”
Notably, Mr. Costa does not answer his question with “the Taliban”, but includes a much broader range of participants who profit from the trade that includes, but is in no way limited to, the Taliban.
When Mr. Costa told reporters, “They have called a moratorium of sorts as a way of keeping the stocks stable and supporting the price”, the Times reported that “They” meant “the Taliban”. But it seems more probable the UNODC Executive Director intended his use of the pronoun to include other groups as well. In fact, the word “Taliban” does not appear in the report outside of Mr. Costa’s comments. The report refers instead more broadly to “anti-government elements” or AGEs.
The Times actually underreports the total estimated amount made by such elements as being $300 million, as opposed to nearly $500 million. But it attributes these profits to “the insurgents” – which it uses nearly synonymously with “the Taliban” – rather than differentiating between warlords, drug lords, and other insurgent groups besides the Taliban. As Mr. Pietschmann told the Journal, the UNODC did not estimate how much of that half million dollars is specifically going to the Taliban.
There are a number of other important facts to consider that the Times does not share with its readers. The total export value of opium and its derivatives (morphine and heroin) this year was estimated by the UNODC to be $3.4 billion. Therefore a logical corollary of the Times’ own account is that the majority of profits from the opium trade are going to non-insurgents.
It should be noted that this conclusion, too, may be inaccurate, as there are simply too many unknowns. But what is clear is that the Taliban, while profiting from the opium trade, do not control it.
The Times misleads on other counts, as well. The UNODC does suggest that opium is being stockpiled as one possible explanation for why costs haven’t dropped in direct correlation with the vast over-supply. Mr. Costa has said that “Lack of price response in the opium market can only be the result of stock build-ups, and all evidence points to the Taliban.” But Mr. Costa himself appears to be politicizing the report's actual findings with this remark. The market price of opium against the estimated supply does suggest stocks are being withheld, and the Taliban does profit from the trade. But there appears to be only this circumstantial evidence that the Taliban is responsible for the theoretical stockpiling; and even if we assume that stockpiling is indeed taking place, there are also non-Taliban warlords and drug lords who may be responsible.
Mr. Pietschmann, in his comments to the Journal, presented the notion of stockpiling by Taliban as merely a possibility. While there aren’t strong indications of direct exporting by the Taliban, “They may, however, hold some of the stocks in Afghanistan and Pakistan and/or ‘protect’ those holding the stocks as well as ‘protect’ the laboratories and some of the convoys.”
Indeed, Mr. Costa’s own commentary in the UNODC report contains numerous caveats, such as “If the Taliban are holding major drug stockpiles…” (emphasis added), suggesting this is only a possibility, not a certainty.
This is a point Mr. Mansfield emphasized in comments to the Journal. With regard to the suggestion that opium is being stockpiled, he said, “This assumption is based on an estimate of global demand of 4,000 metric tons, but is that estimate accurate? Does it adequately reflect use in what are thought to be growing consumer markets such as China and India? It is of course also based on an assessment of Afghan yields, but how accurate are these? The US would seem to systematically estimate lower yields compared with UNODC, to the equivalent of around 2000 metric tons of opium this year. Is some of the ‘surplus’ which UNODC suggests is stockpiled actually a problem of estimates of supply and demand? How much?”
He confirmed that withholding of opium takes place and that he has come across “some wealthier farmers who keep opium and speculate on whether the price will increase” but nevertheless characterized the notion of massive stockpiling to the amounts of “thousands of tons”, as suggested by the UNODC, as being an “assumption”.
