Using Drug Profits in Afghanistan - Essay Example

Critical Thinking & Application Paper Drug Wars: A Case Analysis Word Count: 2,858 Critical Thinking & Application Paper Drug Wars: A Case Analysis 1. Identification What should General Barry Norman do about Afghanistan’s poppy plants? Is it right for General Barry Norman to use the mycoherbicides to supposedly help Afghanistan and its people, and to save many American lives by ending the military action sooner? This is the central ethical issue of the case on Drug Wars. Other ethical issues in the case are: Is it right for the Taliban to protect and tax Afghanistan’s opium business, using drug profits to support its activities, including the fight against US and other forces? Is it right for the Unites States to seek ways to destroy or reduce Afghanistan’s’ opium crop in order to cut off the source of Taliban’s money? Is it right to pay farmers to plant legal agricultural crops instead of poppies? Is it right for the US government to spend $420 million in an effort to eradicate Afghanistans opium trade by plowing poppy plants under or trampling them underfoot? Is it right for Afghanistan to produce poppies and harvest an excessively abundant amount to surpass the previous year’s record crop, thereby enabling the production of a heroin supply so abundant that it exceeded the demand of the world’s addicts? Is it right to use mycoherbicides as a more potentially effective method of eradicating illegal drug crops? Is it right for farmers and foreign government leaders to oppose defoliation? Is it right that no international consensus exists about the dangers of using mycoherbicides? Is General Barry Norman right in believing that the only way for the Taliban to be able to continue their war against human rights, peace, and democracy is to use the funds from the opium trade? Is it right for General Barry Norman to push the Administration of Afghanistan to give him the ability to use mycoherbicides on the poppy fields in Afghanistan? I agree that to the choice of the central issue as: Is it right for General Barry Norman to use the mycoherbicides to supposedly help Afghanistan and its people, and to save many American lives by ending the military action sooner? As compared to all the other ethical issues, the issue on determining if General Barry Norman is right to use the mycoherbicides is most critical in the case given that any action that would ensue from this issue would drastically affect a majority of people: the Afghanistan, the Americans, and even the international organizations who should be involved in the effects of mychoherbicides to mankind. In other words, this central ethical issue has enormous ethical implications. The other identified ethical issues only affect the party concerned (like for example, the first issue: “Is it right for the Taliban to protect and tax Afghanistan’s opium business, using drug profits to support its activities, including the fight against US and other forces?” have ethical implications focusing on the interests of the Talibans – with repercussions to the United States. For the second issue: “Is it right for the Unites States to seek ways to destroy or reduce Afghanistan’s’ opium crop in order to cut off the source of Taliban’s money?” the ethical implications would revolve on benefits to the US and detriments to the Taliban. In contrast, the central issue does not only affect the Talibans, the United States, but other innocent people whose lives might be put in danger with the use of the mycoherbicides. The fact that there is a critical concern as to the stability of the mycoherbicides and the likelihood they may mutate and spread beyond our control attests to the veracity of it being the central ethical issue in the case. 2. Research A central ethical issue of using mycoherbicides in Afghanistan’s poppy plants needs further research. A report conducted by the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) entitled “Repeating Mistakes of the Past: Another Mycoherbicide Research Bill” clearly detailed the following relevant details about mycoherbicide. First and foremost, mycoherbicides are identified as “toxic mold-like fungi that attack plants and other life forms, including mammals – be tested in field studies and used against drug crops in foreign drug-producing countries, such as Colombia and Afghanistan”. (DPA, 2006, ii) This data confirms the facts in the case: “mycoherbicides are living organisms that invade plants, introducing a toxin that sometimes kills the plant; or if the plant lives until harvest, may cause illness and death when ingested by humans or animals.” More importantly, the report indicated that “the use of mycoherbicides against drug crops has already been studied and rejected by every U.S. government agency that has ever worked with them. They were also rejected by the Andean Community of Nations and the United Nations because of their non-selectivity, mutagenicity and environmental toxicity on plants, people and microorganisms found in the soil” (DPA, 2006, ii) This statement confirms and validates the case facts which state that “many United States’ government agencies have studied mycoherbicides and have concluded that the organisms are harmful, can possibly be genetically unstable and mutate rapidly, and may have a disastrous impact on the environment.” The dangerous effects of mycoherbicides are enumerated, to wit: “the mycoherbicides proposed for drug crop eradication have been shown to be toxic to various forms of life. They have also been shown to mutate and cause damage to other crops. They can migrate to areas other than where they were originally used and contain toxins associated with chemical and biological warfare. Furthermore, there are already strains of the target crops that are resistant to mycoherbicides. (DPA, 2006, 10) Further, using General Barry Norman’s allegations that “he knows that if he pushes the current administration he will be given the ability to use mycoherbicides on the poppy fields in Afghanistan” could be disputed as noted in the report entitled “Plan Afghanistan” when President Karzai has stated repeatedly that he is unwilling to consider anything other than manual eradication of opium poppy. Accordingly, to allow such tainted technology into the present Afghanistan situation would only assist in further destabilizing the situation there. (2005). Further, the Office of National Affairs emphasized that “given all of the evidence against mycoherbicides obtained during over thirty years of study, they should not even be considered for use by the U.S. government” (DPA, 2006, 10) Finally, researches from the Sunshine Institute reveal that “while mycoherbicides contain chemical toxins, they are actually covered under the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) rather than the Chemical Weapons Convention (Sunshine Institute, 2006). Given that mycoherbicides are biological agents it has been argued that their use, especially in foreign countries, would be illegal under the BWC (Sunshine Project, 2005; Zanders, Hersh, Simon, Wahlberg, 2001). This fact validates the unethical use of mycoherbicides to eradicate poppy fields in Afghanistan due to the toxic nature of the fungi giving it a classification of Biological Weapon which has tremendously dangerous effects to a wide range of biological species, including human lives. 3. Analysis Stakeholders Options Use mychoherbicides to eradicate poppy fields Use crop substitution and & alternative livelihood programs Shift resources to interdiction, rule of law, going after the big guys and those involved people in the government Status Quo – nothing is done The Taliban No income to fuel insurgent’s future activities; risk of inciting rebellion Will still have some income from poppy fields not completely eradicated by crop substitution Risk of inciting rebellion and instigating counter measures Trade is completed as usual; drug trade persists and possible worsen; more funds for terrorist activities. The People from Afghanistan Lesser gross domestic product for the country and income for the people; risks of being contaminated by toxins and be directly affected through illness and death; destruction of the environment and other food crops. Lesser gross domestic product for the country and income for the people. Some fields would still be allotted for poppy plantations and would hardly minimize the drug trade. Poppy fields will still be there – available for drug trade; same income potentials to people; possibility of being eventually free from drug trade if big guys and drug traders prevented from transacting with them. Greater gross domestic product for the country from sale of poppies; people would be forever dependent on the Talibans for sources of income from poppies. The People from United States Successful elimination or minimization of sources of drugs domestically and in the global market. Partially success in minimizing sources of drugs through diverting fields previously planted with poppies Possible long term effect in addressing problems of drug trade Continued problem on proliferation of drugs to US and global nations; further research on addressing drug problems in Afghanistan. 4. Application Part I: After close evaluation of the situation, a resolution of the central ethical issue would be further analyzed using the consequential theory of rule utilitarianism. Kemerling (2002) averred that “Benthams moral theory was founded on the assumption that it is the consequences of human actions that count in evaluating their merit and that the kind of consequence that matters for human happiness is just the achievement of pleasure and avoidance of pain” (par. 2) In fact, according to Warren (n.d.) “rule utilitarianism would normally ask two questions, to wit: (1) what general rule would I be following if I did this particular action? And (2) would this rule, if generally followed, maximize happiness? This kind of utilitarianism doesn’t assess individual actions for their utility, but rather focuses on the utility of the general rules of which a particular action would be an instance. It says that an action is good it conforms to a rule which, if generally practiced, would produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number.” (1) In this case, the rule utilitarianism is applied in the central ethical issue in terms to determining what general rule would be applicable if General Barry Norman uses the mychoherbicides to eradicate poppy fields in Afghanistan? And would following this rule maximize happiness? The rule of adhering to the terms forged under the Biological Weapons Convention clearly stipulate that mycoherbicides is included in their list as a biological agents (a toxigenic) with drastically tremendous negative effects to plants, animals, humans and the environment for long periods of time. In this regard, it is to the best interest of General Barry Norman not to use mycoherbicides as a means to have the poppy fields eradicated because in addition to it being illegal for use, it would have long, uncontrollable, and drastic effects to a greater number. The long term effects would cause unhappiness and pain not only to those who instigated it but also to all those innocent victims of its application. Part II: Using the non-consequential theory of Kant, the central ethical issue of the case would be evaluated on the premise that no outcome was inherently good. Further, Kant averred that “pleasure or happiness could result out of the most evil acts.  He also did not believe in ‘good’ character traits, as ingenuity, intelligence, courage etc. could all be used for evil.” (Religious Studies Online, n.d., par. 1) His contention was that through reason, a determination of one’s duty can be made. Kant also believed that God is the basis for moral actions. His Synthetic A Priori explains man’s actions according to a set of rules where reason is applied prior to experience. His categorical imperative, stated in the aforementioned ways, “could be seen as a rational justification for following the golden rule that is the cornerstone of Christian morals.” (par. 15) In this regard, Kant’s theory, specifically that of focusing on duties of non-injury which are duties of not injuring others. If one is in a position to avoid or prevent hurting someone, then one is obliged to avoid or prevent injury. It is General Barry Norman’s contention that it is within his scope of responsibility to enjoin all allied efforts to stabilize Afghanistan. This necessitates ensuring the safety and security of the Afghanistan people in the long term. His ultimate duty, therefore, is to ensure that the mycoherbicides should not be used to eradicate the poppy fields in Afghanistan because doing so would violate the rules and agreement forged under the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) which prevents the use of mycoherbicides in foreign countries. 5. Decision-Making After analyzing the case scenario, with close identification of the ethical issues, including the central ethical issue, and with data provided in the options for stakeholders, the applications of the ethical theories, laws and rules, it is to the best interest of General Barry Norman to shift their resources to interdiction, rule of law, going after the big guys and those involved people in the government. Counternarcotics measures are critical in ensuring that the people of Afghanistan would be protected from the drug trade. The option of using mycoherbicides enumerates more disadvantages and creates more danger to human lives and to the environment in the long run. The alternative of using crop substitution and alternative livelihood programs would only temporarily minimize the planting of poppies but the lucrative prospects of earning from poppy harvest make the farmers choose planting poppies instead. The option of not doing anything (status quo) is definitely not beneficial to the people of Afghanistan and to the rest of the world in the long run, in terms of the harmful effects of the drug trade. The Department of Defense (DOD) revealed through a report entitled “Drug Interdiction and Counter Drug Activities, Defense (Counternarcotics)” that “the production and trafficking of narcotics in Afghanistan is a devastating threat to the stability of Afghanistan and the surrounding region. Afghanistan cannot develop into a properly functioning democracy, with a stable government operating under the rule of law, if the drug trade dominates its economy. To combat the drug trade, the U.S. government (USG), working with allied governments, developed a five-pillared counternarcotics strategy addressing (1) alternative livelihoods, (2) elimination and eradication, (3) interdiction, (4) law enforcement and justice reform, and (5) public information” (2009, par. 1) This option, therefore, is the best and most ethical option as it satisfies the theories of utilitarianism in “choosing the action that will bring about the greatest good for the greatest number of individuals.” (University of Virginia, 2010, par. 5) Further, it conforms to one of Kant’s duties of non-injury which are duties of not injuring others. If one is in a position to avoid or prevent hurting someone, then one is obliged to avoid or prevent injury, especially to a greater number of people (and even to the environment) in the long run. 6. Evaluation There are those who might aver that this is not the best solution to the central ethical issue. The following arguments against the resolution are: (1) Funding. It is more costly to train, purchase the required equipment, required qualified and competent personnel who are expert on intelligence, and infrastructure to counter narcotics trafficking and narcotics-related terrorist activities in Afghanistan, and in other risk areas in the world. However, in the long run, these costs would be negated by the benefits that these measures would deliver to the development and improvement of Afghanistan’s government and economy and its repercussion to drug trade in other nations of the world. By ensuring that the necessary strategies are implemented with appropriate funds, the dilemma on producing poppies at Afghanistan will eventually be resolved. (2) Long term frame to solve the problem. Those opposed to this option would aver that this would take quite a considerable amount of time before the problem of drugs in Afghanistan would be eliminated, or even minimized. A process of punitive sanctions for violations of drug trafficking must be strictly enforced. Further, a development of more sophisticated information and communication system is needed to support this option. But this option is still better than opting for short term solutions which eventually revert to status quo. (3) Support from concerned governments. The success of this endeavor necessitates support from the government of Afghanistan and of the United States, as well as concerned international agencies and organizations monitoring the drug trade. If only the United States show effort of complete support to this option, then, at the onset, it would be a failure. However, it is eminent that international organizations and even that of Afghanistan are keen to resolve the dilemma. 7. Reflection This critical thinking analysis provided the opportunity to develop my analytic abilities in terms of linking ethical theories and concepts to practical and contemporary applications. It made me more aware of areas which need improvement such as delving into the ethical theories of consequentialism and the non-consequential theories and applying them to real situations. The exercise detailed the critical steps that one must consider in identifying a central ethical issue, and work in a structured manner towards its resolution: using theoretical concepts, research, applications to the concepts, and analytical skills in selecting the best alternative to solve the dilemma. It is a most challenging endeavor – but an equally rewarding one. When confronted with a similar situation in the future, I honestly believe, that I would still apply the same process because this is one of the best structured problem-solving process which incorporates ethical considerations in a critical thinking model. References Department of Defense. (2009). Drug Interdiction and Counter Drug Activities, Defense (Counternarcotics). Retrieved 27 February 2010. Drug Policy Alliance. (2006). Repeating Mistakes of the Past: Another Mychoherbicide Research Bill. Retrieved 26 February 2010. Kemerling, G. (2002). Utilitarianism. Retrieved 26 February 2010. < http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5q.htm> “Plan Afghanistan.” TNI Drug Policy Briefing (10, February 2005) Retrieved 26 February 2010. Religious Studies Online. (n.d.) Kant’s Ethical Theory in Detail. Retrieved 20 Feb. 2010. < http://www.rsrevision.com/Alevel/ethics/kant/> Sunshine Institute. (2006, March 3). Personal communication. Edward Hammond, Director. Sunshine Project. (2005, September). Risks of Using Biological Agents to Eradicate Drug Plants. Backgrounder #14. University of Virginia, School of Medicine. (2010). Ethical Considerations in the Use of Laboratory Animals for Research and Teaching at the University of Virginia. Retrieved 26 February 2010. < http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/ccm/ethics/ethics.cfm> Warren, D. (n.d.) Act vs. Rule Utilitarianism. Retrieved 26 February 2010. Zanders, J.P., Hersh, M., Simon, J., Wahlberg, M. (2001). “Chemical and biological weapon developments and arms control.” Armaments, Disarmament and International Security, SIPRI Yearbook. Read More