BRITAIN'S WAR ON DRUGS IS NAIVE, SAYS US

Policy Clashes Undermine Blair's Pledge to End Afghanistan Opium Production

The US has blamed Britain's 'lack of urgency' for its failure to arrest the
booming opium trade in Afghanistan, exposing a schism between the allies as
the country trembles on the brink of anarchy.

As a record opium harvest fuels the supply of heroin to Britain's streets,
the US embassy in Kabul has revealed policy clashes which undermined Tony
Blair's pledge to end Afghan poppy cultivation.

'You guys are here because you have a war on drugs,' one US official told
The Observer. 'Less than 5 per cent of all opiates in North America come
from Afghanistan; I'm here because we have a war on terror. It does produce
slightly different emphases. Britain will achieve the results they want in
10 years and that's fast enough for them. We will achieve the result we
want only if we do it more quickly.'

Responding to Foreign Office minister Bill Rammell's wish that drugs barons
and traffickers be jailed before October's presidential election, the
official said: 'Britain's attitude is a little naive. I can name several
Afghan government ministers and regional warlords absolutely up to their
necks in drugs money. I would not bet on any high profile arrests before
the election.'

The war on drugs is seen as key to the allies' attempt to halt
Afghanistan's violent disintegration and ensure the election goes ahead
after two postponements. The effort suffered another blow last week when
Medecins Sans Frontieres - whose aid workers have weathered 24 years of
Soviet invasion, civil war, Taliban tyranny and American bombing -
announced it was pulling out because the country was too dangerous.

Afghanistan is the world's biggest producer of opiates and supplies the
opium base for about 95 per cent of heroin consumed in the UK. Output was
slashed by the Taliban during their last year in power in 2001, but
rocketed twentyfold in the following two years, according to the United
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. With another bumper crop this year,
leading to cheaper and higher quality heroin in British cities, the
recriminations are flying.

The Foreign Office, which leads the international effort and is funding
UKP70 million over three years, was attacked last week by the parliamentary
foreign affairs committee, which said: 'There is little, if any, sign of
the war on drugs being won, and every indication that the situation is
likely to deteriorate, at least in the short term.'

The Foreign Office claims it is developing with the US a 'common agenda and
shared commitment for next year across the whole range of counter-narcotics
work'. But non-government organisations working in Afghanistan fear that
divisions between the allies have done irreparable damage already.

Earlier this year the US State Department's senior narcotics official,
Robert Charles, accused Britain of squeamishness during a hearing entitled,
'Afghanistan: are British counter-narcotics efforts going wobbly?' British
diplomats were reported to be furious.

But even moderate voices within the US embassy in Kabul have spelled out
the gulf between its priorities and those of Britain.

The MPs' report last week confirmed that efforts to develop alternative
livelihoods for the poppy farmers had yet to produce results. The area
under poppy cultivation was forecast to grow to between 90,000 and 120,000
hectares this year, increasing the dependence of farmers on the crop and
funding the defiance of central government by regional warlords.

The role of the military - currently at full stretch hunting Osama bin
Laden - has been a bone of contention. The American official, who since
giving this interview has left the embassy, continued: 'I was struck in our
discussions with minister Rammell that the tick list of points from him had
not changed one iota from a year ago, and the number one tick list point is
always that coalition forces must be more aggressive and we need, in
essence, a military solution by going after drugs labs.

'Our military is absolutely apoplectic at the thought of getting anywhere
near any of these issues. They don't want to be dragged into a drug war
like they were in South America and they don't want to do anything that
will make their job harder. There's no question if you could go after the
drug trade right now, in any way, shape or form, it's going to cause
ripples. If we said fine, we're just going to give away money and attack
drugs labs, you don't think that wouldn't cause instability?'

NGOs are angry at the allies' lack of a co-ordinated approach to law
enforcement. Paul O'Brien, advocacy co-ordinator for Care International in
Afghanistan, said: 'We are concerned the progress they're making is being
oversold and the nature of the challenge is being underestimated. The rule
of law is where the response has not been adequate. The international force
on the ground has refused to take it on because there is insufficient
political will. They wouldn't have had to eradicate if they'd taken it
seriously at the start.'