With disarming innocence my seven-year-old daughter started the day at 6.15 with a question:
“Daddy, how do wars end?”
I thought about it for a minute and with yesterday’s Remembrance Sunday services and World War I in mind, I replied: “Well, usually the fighting stops when one side decides it can’t win and gives in to the more powerful side.”
I’m not sure the answer was very convincing, either for my daughter or for me.
A few minutes later, our newspaper was delivered. The head of Britain’s armed forces, Air Marshall Sir Jock Stirrup was predicting that the end of the conflict in Afghanistan wouldn’t happen until 2014. By then my daughter, who was born a year after 9/11, will be in her second year of secondary school. That’s a long time to wait for peace, especially for a child.
But how do wars end?
Twenty years ago today, people-power brought down the Berlin Wall and a BBC reporter revisiting the scene this morning noted how many expensive designer boutiques had now sprung up to replace concrete and conflict. Consumerism triumphed over communism and for many young people now the i-phone appears to be more important than ideology.
So, maybe there’s a clue there for Afghanistan and those who seek to bring peace to a troubled country.
Let’s ignore the headlines for a moment and take a look at the bottom line.
According to the New York Times, the US budget for overseas conflicts for 2010 is $130 billion. So, if we take Sir Jock Stirrup’s prediction on board, we can multiply that by five, which gives us a nice round figure of $650 billion. That’s a lot of spending power.
So, what could we spend it on? What have they got to sell in Afghanistan? A report on MSNBC recently calculated that the opium harvest in 2007 was worth $4 billion, or almost half of Afghanistan’s GDP. That crop supplies 93% of the world’s heroin producers.
So, why doesn’t the US Government go into the drug dealing business? If it paid Afghanistan’s growers $40 billion dollars a year for their crop – ten times its current market value, surely farmers would be tempted to start trading and the Taliban would be priced out of the market. Afghanistan’s GDP would also be increased five-fold overnight. If the model was successful, the US would be making a saving of $90 billion.
But what could the US Government do with a huge stockpile of opium? Well, first they could choke off the supply to heroin dealers around the world and second they could use the opium to create free drugs to be used for medicinal purposes. For instance, at least two opiates are used to treat diarrhoea.
Last month the World Health Organisation released new figures showing that diarrhoea is killing three times as many people over the age of 5 as previously thought – 1.1 million people every year. But here’s a more shocking statistic, especially for any parent: in addition to those 1.1 million people, a further 1.5 million children under the age of 5 are killed by the ailment every year. That Afghan harvest could save a lot of tot’s lives.
Of course, it is all too easy to oversimplify any conflict or the motives driving those fighting on either side. But if political leaders can look for creative ways to turn swords into plough shares and then to ensure that the farmers working the ploughs can receive a decent farm gate price, surely the warmongers will find themselves on the back foot.
It may sound preposterous, but surely no more preposterous than trying to beat the Afghan people on their home territory. The Soviets tried it 30 years ago and when First World War troops on the Western Front were laying down their arms on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month of 1918, my daughter’s great-grandfather, a man who had survived the first day of the Battle of the Somme, was still fighting. And guess where? That’s right. Afghanistan.