In an attempt to end one of the longest wars in U.S. history, the United States and its NATO allies in Afghanistan view counternarcotics initiatives as vital to counterinsurgency efforts by cutting off revenue to insurgents. A new Center for International Cooperation (CIC) report by Jonathan Caulkins, Mark Kleiman, and Jonathan Kulick challenges this assumption.

The United States and its NATO allies in Afghanistan view counternarcotics initiatives as vital to counterinsurgency efforts by cutting off revenue to insurgents. A new Center for International Cooperation (CIC) report entitled "Drug Production and Trafficking, Counterdrug Policies, and Security and Governance in Afghanistan" challenges this assumption. Instead, the authors argue:

  • Current counternarcotics policy in Afghanistan is financially benefiting – rather than hurting – insurgents;
  • Rural development efforts should be focused on assisting rural populations – aid should not be conditioned on desistance from poppy-growing; and
  • Counternarcotics policy should be refocused to discriminate against illegal armed groups and corrupt officials in enforcement.

The report utilizes microeconomic analysis of the likely consequences of various counternarcotics strategies on both drug market outcomes and the security and governance situation in Afghanistan. It examines the division of drug trafficking revenues among insurgents, “warlords,” and corrupt government officials, the likely impact of drug enforcement policies on different points of the distribution chain, and the effect of these policies on drug consumption, dependency and harm to drug users.

Speakers

  • Jonathan Caulkins, Presenter
    Co-author, "Drug Production and Trafficking, Counterdrug Policies, and Security and Governance in Afghanistan."
  • Mark Kleiman, Presenter
    Co-author, "Drug Production and Trafficking, Counterdrug Policies, and Security and Governance in Afghanistan."
  • Jonathan Kulick, Presenter
    Co-author, "Drug Production and Trafficking, Counterdrug Policies, and Security and Governance in Afghanistan."
  • Philip B. Heymann, Discussant
    Ames Professor of Law at Harvard and former Deputy Attorney General
  • William Taylor, Moderator
    Vice President of Post-Conflict Peace and Stability Operations, U.S. Institute of Peace

 

Related Publications

Afghanistan: Can Central Asia Help Spur Peace with the Taliban?

Afghanistan: Can Central Asia Help Spur Peace with the Taliban?

Tuesday, July 28, 2020

By: Adam Gallagher

Afghanistan’s peace process could be taking a major step forward in August with the potential commencement of intra-Afghan talks, said the U.S. chief negotiator on Friday. “This is an important moment for Afghanistan and for the region—perhaps a defining moment,” said Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad. Peace in Afghanistan would redound to the benefit of the entire region. As the peace process stumbles forward, one critical but often overlooked element is the role of Afghanistan’s Central Asian neighbors.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Peace Processes

Legislature and Legislative Elections in Afghanistan: An Analysis

Legislature and Legislative Elections in Afghanistan: An Analysis

Wednesday, July 8, 2020

By: A. Farid Tookhy

Afghanistan’s newest Wolesi Jirga—the lower house of the National Assembly—boasts a younger and more educated membership than those elected in either 2005 or 2010. Its representativeness, however, is uneven and problematic. This report offers a comparative profile of the Wolesi Jirgas elected in 2005, 2010, and 2018, highlighting issues salient to the reforms Afghanistan needs to undertake if it is to hold credible national elections that yield truly representative elected institutions.

Type: Special Report

Democracy & Governance

U.S., Russian interests overlap in Afghanistan. So, why offer bounties to the Taliban?

U.S., Russian interests overlap in Afghanistan. So, why offer bounties to the Taliban?

Tuesday, July 7, 2020

By: Andrew Wilder

Recent intelligence reports indicating that Russian bounties paid to the Taliban to kill U.S. troops have bolstered American and Afghan officials long-held allegations that Moscow has been engaged in clandestine operations to undermine the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. Russia’s support for the Taliban, however, has largely been tactical in nature. Both Washington and Moscow ultimately have a converging strategic interest in a relatively stable Afghanistan without a long-term U.S. presence that will not be a haven for transnational terrorists. USIP’s Andrew Wilder looks at what this means for the decades-long Afghan conflict.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Conflict Analysis & Prevention; Global Policy

View All Publications