BAD ACTORS

Afghanistan's Taliban Regime Is Brutal And Harsh - So Why Does Washington
Send It Aid?

The Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, recognized as legitimate only by three
Islamic nations, are a decidedly odd choice for an outright gift of $43
million from the Bush administration. Theirs is a brutal regime with one of
the worst records on earth for violations of human rights-witness its new
requirement that minority Hindus wear identifying badges.

This is the same government against which the United Nation imposes
sanctions, at the behest of the United States, for refusing to turn over
the terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden.

So why are we sending these people money -so much that Washington is, in
effect, the biggest donor of aid to the Taliban regime?

The gift, announced recently by Secretary of State Colin Powell, ostensibly
is to help Afghani farmers through one of the worst droughts in their
nation's history. The real reason is to reward the Taliban for imposing a
tough new ban on the cultivation of the opium poppies that supply the
international heroin trade.

The Taliban, whose leaders aren't squeamish about using draconian measures
to enforce compliance with their strict interpretation of Islamic law, have
succeeded in stopping the cultivation of opium poppies dead in its tracks:
No farmer in his right mind wants the Taliban's zealous enforcers to pay an
unwanted visit. But the same farmers are now in danger of going under,
particularly since nothing else grows reliably under droughtconditions -and
nothing else generates the same profits as opium.

The Bush administration, intent on fighting illegal drug production abroad,
is so delighted at the opium ban that it's willing to overlook America's
differences with the Taliban-such as its barbaric treatment of women, its
trampling on the rights of religious minorities, its desecration of
religious statues, even its protection of bin Laden.

So while we slap economic sanctions on the brutal Taliban, we lavish $43
million on it for being tough on drugs. The multiple demands of diplomacy
sometimes require a degree of policy ambiguity-but this looks more like a
case of the left hand not being much acquainted with what the right hand is
up to.