I am very happy to participate in this panel. In Portugal I belong to a major group of people which criticized the armed intervention in Iraq. But I supported and still support the assistance and co-operation with Afghanistan in every domain.

I believe we have a moral responsibility and a legal and political duty towards both Afghan people and the Afghan Government. Facing this responsibility and paying this duty demand an increasing support to Afghan institutions.

I understand that ICOS under the guidance and leadership of Norine MacDonald is preparing a daring and ambitious project which deserves our full support and involvement.

Meanwhile let me remind you of some facts about present day Afghanistan and its relation with Europe.

During my intervention at a similar occasion last year in Paris, I mentioned that drug policy is currently in many ways at a crossroad. That statement still holds much truth today and particularly for present-day Afghanistan.

Not surprisingly, Afghan authorities are increasingly worried by recent developments in their country. Minister Qaderi has just informed us about the excellent work that his Ministry is undertaking and the work that still lies ahead of us.

As you probably know, Afghanistan provides an astonishing 70 to 90 percent of the heroin that can be found on the European illegal street market. In the US the percentage is much lower.

Of course we cannot blame Afghanistan for this situation. If it was not Afghanistan other country would produce the drugs demanded by our markets. Because one of the driving factors behind the cultivation and trafficking of opium poppy and of heroin and other opiates is the fact that there is a European demand for these drugs. The demand encourages the offer; the offer breeds demand.

Is this controversial? Well, for some people yes. I wonder why.

I reckon that Portugal has a very serious problem of heroin consumption. Although this heroin consumption is on decline, we still have one of the biggest heroin using percentages in Europe. And we know that most of the heroin consumed in Portugal and other countries of the European Union stems from the poppy fields in Afghanistan and finds its way to streets in Lisbon and Oporto through trafficking routes in Central Asia and through countries such as Pakistan and Iran.

Does it mean that what we have to do is to put pressure on Afghanistan to solve the problem, our problem that is also its problem, no matter how and with what costs?

Of course not!

Europe has a very important role to play. First of all we have the responsibility of curbing illicit drug demand at home.

Second, Europe must help producer and transit countries like Afghanistan to develop effective policies to curb illicit drug cultivation, production and trafficking. This can be done by providing technical assistance, developing alternative livelihood strategies as Christoph Berg has just (will undoubtedly) mention(ed) to us (shortly) and exchanging expertise in law enforcement techniques and border control systems.

In all these areas ICOS can certainly provide an excellent assistance.

But let me be specific on one point: our approach may not be ‘lets go to Afghanistan to solve or to help them to solve our own drug problems’, our western, rich countries problems, without any consideration to Afghan people problems.

That would be regretfully wrong.

Because what we can remark now in Afghanistan is that the first and major victims of drug problems are the Afghan women and men. They are really those who are using drugs increasingly (in some parts of the country there are estimates which show that 50% of the people are addicted to opium, a record certainly higher than any other region in the world).

Furthermore the Afghanis see their country taken by narco-traffickers.

And we know what a narco-state means. We have just to look at Colombia and answer to one question: who are the first victims of Colombia being a narco-state?

The answer is obvious: of course the first victims are the Colombians who suffer a never ending civil war with thousands of killings and kidnappings.

Hence our attitude towards both Afghanistan’s people and Government should be: ‘please allow us to help you, to help us, to help you in combating our shared drug problems’. This view has a very immediate outcome: we should not be worried only and strictly with cultivation and trafficking. Our efforts should not be strictly orientated towards cultivation repression. As important as that is prevention, treatment and risk reduction in Afghanistan.

In Afghanistan, as in Europe!

Here we can add a third task for Europe, for European governments, for European institutions, for European NGOs and European experts.

Given the extraordinary amount of expertise and knowledge gathered in Europe over the past years, in terms of effective, pragmatic and science-based policies to curb drug demand, treat and rehabilitate drug addicts, Europe should take additional responsibility to help countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan deal with their huge problems of drug addiction. Prevention, treatment and harm reduction policies have been developed in European countries, which could in the medium and long-term also seriously diminish the size and scope of the addiction problem in Afghanistan.

This is a duty for all of us.

Of course, this third role of offering Europe’s expertise in demand reduction on a wide scale to Afghanistan would first demand that Europe itself recognizes more its unique tradition and expertise with prevention, treatment and harm reduction policies.

Concerning the eradication of opium poppy cultivation and the interdiction efforts focusing on drug trafficking in Afghanistan, I would advise to be very careful as we have arrived at a crucial moment. Against the backdrop of record opium harvests, thousands of Afghan households involved in this trade, persisting poverty and the current lack of many viable licit income sources, it would be very unwise to force farmers and traders out of the business when licit alternatives are not available. They have to be encouraged to switch to licit income opportunities by offering carrots instead of sticks.

Eradication could be considered as soon as alternatives are readily available and only targeting those groups that do not seem to be willing to take part in licit sectors.

Fumigation, however, should be avoided, as we have the example of Colombia, where fumigation led and still leads to the spraying of licit food crops, livestock, drinking water and even people themselves. It also led to displacement of people and crops.

Afghan government wisely has stated on several occasions that fumigation is not an option. Europe should fully acknowledge this wise decision of the Afghan government and answer to it by providing funds and resources to implement policies that do not have negative consequences and contribute to Afghanistan’s general economic development and stability.

Thank you