Pakistan And The Regional Narcotics Debate – OpEd
Natiq Malikzada’s article in the National Interest on Pakistan and narcotics comes as a worrisome item for a number of reasons: Pakistan cannot be criticized for having a problem with narcotics if no serious evidence is presented; and, the article is indeed a serious accusation. An expose of an international narco-terror network can’t be based on insinuation, recycled suspicion and anonymous testimony. Accusing states of complicity in a foreign policy work is hardly a role a foreign policy publication can afford to take lightly, when such a claim could be easily confused with fact. In this instance, the difference is not so clear. The outcome is not an analysis, and not even an analysis based upon evidence, it is a polemical indictment, a judgment passed by a region as its own expertise.
The methodological weakness of Malikzada is his main one. He links the geography, especially of Pakistan, the trafficking routes from Afghanistan, the financing of the militants, and some historical issues together and accuses Pakistan of sponsoring all of them under one umbrella of Pakistani sponsorship. It is not an indictment of the state policy to show the existence of trafficking corridors through Pakistan. It does not imply the policy of the state when it is shown that there are trafficking corridors through Pakistan. Coastline, border crossing or smuggling route is NOT a confession. For serious counter-narcotics analysis there must be evidence of production, command, money laundering, protection and prosecutable evidence. The article is far less than it purports to be, but it projects far more.
The first thing that springs to mind is the lack of Afghanistan itself. Afghanistan has been the cornerstone of the region’s opiates for many years and in recent times has become an increasingly large hub of production and trafficking in methamphetamines. African geography of production and criminal networks within Afghan territory are always a crucial point to begin any discussion about narcotics in South and Central Asia. Due to its geographical position, Pakistan is at risk of Afghan narcotics flowing through the country. It is a front-line transit and affected state, it is not the source of the problem. Listing alleged Pakistani sponsorship as a cause does not detract from the fact that Pakistani production networks allegedly continue to support Afghan networks. Highlighting supposed Pakistani support of Afghan production networks does not take away from the fact that Pakistani networks are being used to support Afghan networks.
Pakistan has a lengthier, tough and leaky border with Afghanistan. Trafficked, terrorized, flows of refugees, border militancy and organized crime. Narcotics passing through or close to Pakistani borders not only create addictions, but are also a source of criminality, corruption attempts and security threats for Pakistani society. It is not easy to prove a negative and show how a state is the victim of a drug economy without being considered the cause of it.A state that is experiencing the effects of a drug economy should not be painted as the cause of it without evidence.
This is also a selective attempt to link narcotics funded militancy to Pakistan in a general way. The region is a hub of various criminal economies such as extortion, kidnapping, illegal taxation, smuggling, donations, hawala networks and drug trafficking which all terrorist groups make use of. Terrorism has come with a heavy cost for Pakistan and it has lost its civilians, soldiers, police officers and economic stability due to the terror. It is also implementing legal, financial and security measures regarding the financing of terror. That record doesn’t suggest that all Pakistani institutions have been flawless throughout, but it fails to take into account Pakistan’s own victimhood and enforcement burden as well as to tell a simple story of state sponsorship.
When taken out of the context of Afghanistan’s meth production, the meth argument is especially confusing. Afghan meth has been associated with production networks within Afghanistan, such as availability of precursors, and laboratory-based production. However, the traffic trend does not pass to neighbouring states facing the spill-over if it changes following changes in Afghan opium production. While strengthening border controls, Maritime surveillance, financial monitoring and regional intelligence sharing will help Pakistan overcome the growing problem of synthetic drug trade, but the source of the mushrooming problem of synthetic drugs cannot be shifted politically.
Pakistan’s fight against drugs should get its due share of justice. The country has been “poppy-free” for quite a long time and has a well-defined legal and policy framework such as the National Anti-Narcotics Policy 2019, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, Anti-Narcotics Force Act 1997 and others. Seizures, prosecutions and interdiction operations are carried out by its Anti-Narcotics Force, customs, coast guards, maritime security agencies and law-enforcement agencies, while it is also responsible for international coordination. Continued efforts are needed to improve these, but if you are not improving them while you are only adding on the anonymous claims then you’re being selective.
Further complicating Malikzada’s story is his involvement in international affairs. Cooperation, Counter Narcotics training, Case Management modernization, Operational coordination with UNODC and foreign law enforcement institutions are the areas where Pakistan’s Law Enforcement Institutions are engaged in cooperation with UNODC and other foreign LEAs. This engagement underscores the fact that narcotics trafficking is a transnational problem which has to be addressed jointly. The continued technical assistance from international anti-narcotics organizations is difficult to harmonize with the image of Pakistan as just a “permissive sponsor” that was created in the article. Trafficking networks are attracted to Pakistan and it is a crucial ally in the fight against trafficking.
One of the key factors is the timing of the debate. In 2024, the cultivation of poppy has increased again, following the dramatic drop in cultivation after the ban was lifted and it is now shifting to border regions in Afghanistan. This trend highlights the importance of examining the dynamics of Afghan production, rural economies, weaknesses in enforcement and adaptation of traffickers. It does not excuse Pakistan for being geographically located in this manner. With an increased influx of Afghan citizens into the border areas, it is the weakness, not the fault of, of Pakistan.
The National Interest should not be as prone to making broad conclusions, based on anonymous sourcing, and speculations, as it is. However, opinion is not evidence, and Natiq Malikzada is entitled to his opinion – he just has to be confident of it. The drug situation in the area is indeed serious and hazardous. For this reason, it must be accurate, disciplined and honest. While there is a need for Pakistan to be looked at when there is evidence to do so, it must not become a scapegoat for the Afghan narcotics networks overwhelmingly based in the Afghan production zone.
Like what you read?
Please consider supporting Eurasia Review. Thank you for your consideration!
