• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Martha Brill Olcott"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "russia",
  "programs": [
    "Russia and Eurasia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "Afghanistan",
    "Central Asia"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security"
  ]
}
REQUIRED IMAGE

REQUIRED IMAGE

In The Media

Afghan Drug Trade: Terror in the Wings

Link Copied
By Martha Brill Olcott
Published on Apr 22, 2002
Program mobile hero image

Program

Russia and Eurasia

The Russia and Eurasia Program continues Carnegie’s long tradition of independent research on major political, societal, and security trends in and U.S. policy toward a region that has been upended by Russia’s war against Ukraine.  Leaders regularly turn to our work for clear-eyed, relevant analyses on the region to inform their policy decisions.

Learn More

Source: Carnegie

This article first appeared in The Christian Science Monitor on April 22, 2002. All rights reserved.

WASHINGTON - The United States is scoring a major victory against terrorism in the war in Afghanistan, but until the US successfully tackles that country's drug-trafficking problem it cannot call the victory permanent.

Drug dealers and arms traders are natural allies; their presence in Afghanistan and throughout Central Asia undermines already-weak states and gives militant Islamic groups the means for self-financing.

Afghanistan has been the world's largest grower of poppies for opium and heroin, largely destined for sale in Europe. Though cultivation was banned briefly by the Taliban, Afghan drug dealers are back in business.

US bombing raids never directly targeted Afghanistan's drug-storage or heroin-producing facilities, and Afghanistan's drug dealers were fast off the mark, distributing seed or cash to purchase it in the fall. They are now primed to buy up the crop, and are inciting local farmers to oppose violently the government's efforts to seize it.

Meanwhile, there is still no US strategy to deal with Afghanistan's return to narco-trafficking and only a trickle of assistance money in the pipeline to counter it. The US timetable for rebuilding Afghanistan must coincide with the way in which risks are generated and not merely be fashioned after Washington's annual budget cycle.

Unless the growing opium and heroin trade from Afghanistan through Central Asia is curbed, anti-state groups will continue to have a ready source of funding, including groups in Russia and Kazakhstan.

Afghan interim leader Hamid Karzai has banned opium-growing, but lacks the money and capacity to enforce his policy successfully. Most local warlords still profit from narco-trafficking by taxing the crop or its transit. Until a national military and police force is trained, Afghanistan must rely on outsiders to enforce the ban, or see it largely ignored.

Current US policy ensures that the latter will be the case, or worse, that the ban will help destabilize the Karzai government, since the Bush administration opposes the creation of a large international security force, whose mandate spans all of Afghanistan.

Tolerating the rebirth of the drug trade transforms the tragedy of Afghanistan's poverty into a problem of regional and eventually global security. One should not minimize how difficult it would be to cut drug protection sharply in Afghanistan. The network of drug dealers is fully intertwined with the traditional local elite. No crop will produce the same income, nor allow a rapacious elite the same easy riches.

Working with the provisional government, the US should work aggressively to halt poppy cultivation in Afghanistan. Crop-substitution projects must gain priority; Afghan farmers should be offered reasonable cash subsidies for destroying the harvest in the field, or for turning it over for destruction. Those who comply should qualify for agricultural reform programs, while those who refuse should lose priority for receiving all forms of development assistance.

Alongside the provisional government, the US should also destroy current stores of opium and then close down heroin factories. Warlords allied with the US's Afghan military effort must pledge to remain "drug free," the US must devote the intelligence resources to monitoring this.

Otherwise, the US may wind up being the inadvertent regulator of the very drug trade that it should be stamping out, as US forces could have to adjudicate between feuding warlords.

Although some funds were recently allocated for eradicating the current crop, the US approach emphasizes interdiction on Central Asia's borders, since more than half of Afghan drugs exit into those states. But current allocations and their promised supplements meet a fraction of these countries' training needs. Tajikistan and Turkmenistan already qualify as "narco-states," as their governments have credibly been accused of sifting profits from the drug trade. And although Tajikistan's new national drug-control agency has sharply improved interdiction rates, funds for this UN-sponsored project run out this year.

Afghanistan's drug trade feeds on Central Asia's poverty. Without concerted action, these fragile states' problems could fester just when the West is planning to tap Caspian oil and gas reserves – reserves whose delivery could be compromised by instability in this land-locked region.

The fight against terrorism cannot hope to succeed unless the US remains as alert to preventing tomorrow's terrorists from consolidating as it is to defeating the current threat. As in the other battlefields of the war on terror, the US must be prepared to deal a blow to the Afghan drug trade, even if Washington must assume a disproportionate share of the financial burden.

About the Author

Martha Brill Olcott

Former Senior Associate, Russia and Eurasia Program and, Co-director, al-Farabi Carnegie Program on Central Asia

Olcott is professor emerita at Colgate University, having taught political science there from 1974 to 2002. Prior to her work at the endowment, Olcott served as a special consultant to former secretary of state Lawrence Eagleburger.

    Recent Work

  • In The Media
    After Crimea: Will Kazakhstan be Next in Putin’s Reintegration Project?

      Martha Brill Olcott

  • Article
    China’s Unmatched Influence in Central Asia

      Martha Brill Olcott

Martha Brill Olcott
Former Senior Associate, Russia and Eurasia Program and, Co-director, al-Farabi Carnegie Program on Central Asia
Martha Brill Olcott
SecurityAfghanistanCentral Asia

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Article
    Continental Asia and the Rise of Portfolio Politics

    “Central Asia” as an analytical category is itself part of the problem. The term is a Soviet administrative inheritance, drawn along lines that served the convenience of Moscow. The Central Asian states the Soviets named no longer see themselves through this category alone and are not aligning across political blocs but are instead building external partnerships sector by sector, assigning different partners to different functions.

      Jennifer B. Murtazashvili

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    In Russia, Private Companies Have Been Left to Pick Up the Tab for Ukrainian Drone Attacks

    The cost of air defense has become an unregistered tax on revenue for businesses. While military rents are consolidated in the federal budget, the costs of defense are being spread across the balance sheets of companies and regional governments.

      Alexandra Prokopenko

  • Tiananmen Gate with US and Chinese flags
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Trump and Xi Should Tackle a Previously Impossible AI Conversation

    Previous dialogues ended in failure. This time could be different.

      Scott Singer

  • A drone flies in front of an Iranian flag in southern Tehran, Iran
    Article
    The Unintended Consequences of Iran’s Asymmetric Strategy and America’s AI War

    The Iran war is unique in the scope and scale of asymmetric warfare and AI-enabled conflict. These will test the limits of protecting civilians.

      Steve Feldstein

  • A visitor looks at a simulator for "electronic warfare" at the booth of German Federal Armed Forces Bundeswehr during a tour of the Hannover industrial trade fair for mechanical and electrical engineering and digital industries, in Hannover, northern Germany on April 20, 2026.
    Article
    The Effect of Military AI on Contemporary Battlefields

    AI in warfare has numerous impacts, including how they shape human responses to target recommendations and how they increase the speed at which lawful targets can be recommended.

      Yahli Shereshevsky

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.