When I was ten years old, I had to do my homework with my best friend, Nadia.  Nadia struggled with school work, and my job was to help her complete her homework.  Each time her mother checked on us, she said, “there will be no dinner for you, Nadia if you will not finish your homework.” Behind her mother’s back, Nadia joked about how she had always enjoyed dinner despite her mother’s ultimatum.  Nadia’s mother reaffirmed her intent by saying, “No dinner, not even one bite before the homework is done.”   Contrary to her mother’s thoughts, Nadia was not motivated to finish her homework. 

My “language experience” with Nadia and her mother became relevant when I read President Karzai’s decree to regulate timber cutting in his country, Afghanistan.

Banning It All 

In August 2002, President Karzai issued a  decree prohibiting all timber cutting because the country’s forests “suffered irreparable damage” during two decades of conflict. 

Therefore, Karzai directed “all security agencies and provincial authorities… to take necessary measures to prevent…the cuttings strictly….and stop the activities of the timber mafia and deal with offenders in accordance with the law.”

Absolute Language

The decree’s wording is too strict to achieve its goal of prohibiting illegal timber harvesting. For example, what are the necessary measures that all authorities should take? Should these authorities arrest people or open fire at them?  Also, who are these authorities; the police, the army, if so, what branch? The decree does not provide any answers.

Moreover, the decree used unactionable verbs such as “prevent and stop.”  For example, what does it mean to prevent or stop timber cutting? Should police ask people to stop cutting timber or confiscate their tools?

Lack of Management

The decree overlooked the most critical part of any policy, which is to manage the issue at hand. So the decree does not specify what will happen to the timber when everyone stops cutting it? The decree fails to show how the timber will be managed. In all fairness, the decree acknowledges the country’s forests as an asset that would play a “significant role in… strengthening the economic basis of the country.” However, acknowledging an asset is not enough to manage it.  

Challenging to Implement

According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), this decree has proven “difficult to enforce.”  UNEP also noted that the decree is difficult to implement in areas where the timber forest is located, including Kunar, Nuristan, and Nangarhar provinces. 

The Outcome

By banning all timber cutting, the decree created a black market for smuggling timber.

Former Mujahedeen and terrorist organizations have combined their efforts to smuggle timber, including Lashkar-e-Taiba, Taliban, the Korengal insurgency. Currently, ISIS fund their operations by smuggling timber to the neighboring country of Pakistan. 

Proxy War

The decree established proxy warfare. Taliban in Pakistan is helping smugglers in exchange for fighting U.S. soldiers in a proxy war.  Many U.S. soldiers lost their lives because of this proxy war; unfortunately, they got in between the timber and the smugglers.

Language Backfires

The absolute language failed Naida and poisoned her relationship with her mother. This strict language did not motivate Nadia to finish her homework adequately. On top of that, Nadia gained massive weight to prove to her mother that she had access to food. The same strict language failed the Afghani leadership in connecting with their people. The absolute language failed to manage a valuable resource that could have been used to establish jobs and generate income.

Detailed Research

Click here to read more about the implications of timber policy in Afghanistan.