The impending U.S. military strikes on Afghanistan could make Europe's heroin problem worse, says a news report published this past Sunday.

"Massive stockpiles of raw opium grown in Afghanistan are being moved out of the region in anticipation of military strikes," says a Sept. 30 article published in The Scotsman.

"A Downing Street spokesman said there had been evidence in recent weeks of a 'sudden movement' of opium out of neighbouring Pakistan where it was being stockpiled."

The estimated 3,000 tonnes of the drug, said to be worth the equivalent $46.4 billion Can, is reportedly being held by drug lords in the region. With an impending armed assault on Afghanistan, there is fear that drug barons will cut their losses and flood Europe with cheap heroin and opium.

Now, as I learned this past weekend, getting accurate information about Afghanistan is difficult. For instance, last week (Drug War 16) I quoted a Los Angeles Times column that caused a sensation following the September 11 terrorist attacks in the U.S.

The article, published this past May, said the U.S. government gave the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan $43 million after Kabul banned opium production in the Central Asian country.

Well, guess what, the mainstream press -- who widely reported this "fact" -- got it wrong. (This reporter, who based last week's column on several press reports, also got it wrong).

On May 17, the U.S. announced it was giving $43 million in relief assistance to Afghanistan. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said the money was aimed at fighting hunger.

"We distribute our assistance in Afghanistan through international agencies of the United Nations and non-governmental organizations," Powell said.

"We provide our relief to the people of Afghanistan, not to Afghanistan’s ruling factions. Our aid bypasses the Taliban, who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it."

In fact, with the current war against terrorism in full swing, American officials are eager to point out links between the Taliban and the drug trade.

"While publicly denouncing dangerous drugs, Afghanistan's ruling Taliban earn millions of dollars a year by taxing the production, transportation and sale of heroin and opium," the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported on Sept. 26.

The newspaper quoted Asa Hutchinson, the new head of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, as its source.

But here is another interesting point: The U.S. has been aware for years about the reported ties between Afghan militants and the drug trade. Washington, however, didn't make a stink about this drug connection when they were helping Afghan rebels in the 1980s.

When the former Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the CIA helped to fund and arm the country's anti-Communist Islamic rebels, known as the Mujaheddin.

"Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a rebel leader who received $1 billion in covert CIA funds, was a major heroin trafficker," the online news service Nando Times reported on September 28.

Nando quoted Alfred McCoy, a professor of Southeast Asian history at the University of Wisconsin, as its source.

"The CIA's mission was to fight the Cold War, and for that they were willing to sacrifice the drug war," Nando quoted McCoy as saying. "If their local allies were involved in narcotics trafficking, it didn't trouble CIA. They were willing to keep working with people who were heavily involved in narcotics."

Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect in the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States, has also been tied to the opium business.

According to The Scotsman, "Opium grown in Afghanistan is thought to account for 95 per cent of the heroin reaching Britain and around 75 per cent of the total supply worldwide."

But beware: You can't believe everything you read in the press. Do note, however, that if we ever make a mistake we will be the first ones to let you know.

Alejandro Bustos always makes it correct. No matter the time or expense.